Maharashtra RTI Commission Orders Child Welfare Data After Four-Month Delay

Urban Acres: Mumbai: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
The Maharashtra State Information Commission’s Pune bench has directed the Women and Child Development Commissionerate to provide district-wise data on beneficiaries and grants under two child welfare schemes within 15 days, after finding violations of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Commission reprimanded Public Information Officer Yogesh Jawade and warned that disciplinary proceedings could be proposed if statutory provisions were not followed in future. The order was issued by Information Commissioner Makarand Ranade in a case involving RTI applicant Milindkumar Salve.
Salve had filed his RTI application with the Commissionerate on December 31, 2024, seeking district-wise details of beneficiaries under the Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Child Care Scheme and the Centre’s Mission Vatsalya scheme. He also sought information on grants distributed under the schemes.
According to the report, the information was available with the Commissionerate. However, Jawade transferred the application to Women and Child Development officers in all 36 districts instead of providing the information directly. The application was transferred after 27 days, while Salve was informed about the transfer after 56 days.
Salve then filed a first appeal before Rahul More, the then Deputy Commissioner and First Appellate Authority. More upheld the Public Information Officer’s decision, sent the application back to the district offices and directed that the information be provided free of cost.
The applicant subsequently filed a second appeal before the Pune bench of the State Information Commission. Salve told the Commission that he suspected the information was being withheld because the department had previously supplied child care scheme details and notes to the legislature secretariat while responding to a starred question during a legislative session.
The second appeal was heard on May 26, 2026. During the hearing, Ranade also asked Salve to submit a written complaint. The order, however, remained pending for four months even as decisions in cases heard around the same period were issued.
Salve filed two complaints with the Commission but received no response. He later sent a third complaint by email and contacted the Pune divisional Information Commissioner through a personal contact number. The complaints were then acted upon, and Salve received the written decision relating to the May 26 hearing within 50 minutes. A copy of the order was subsequently provided to him.
In its decision, the Commission said Jawade had failed to implement the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, amounting to a violation of the RTI Act. It described the conduct as serious negligence and warned that disciplinary action could follow if future RTI applications were not handled in accordance with the law.
The Commission also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Women and Child Development at the Commissionerate to be designated as the Information Officer in the matter. The department has been instructed to provide the requested information to Salve free of cost within 15 days.

Maharashtra recorded eight farmer suicides a day on average from Jan 2022 till June 2026: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
Maharashtra recorded 13,128 farmer suicide cases between Jan 2022 and June 2026 averaging more than eight a day but it has withheld district-wise figures sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, activist Jeetendra Ghadge has alleged.

The relief and rehabilitation department’s figures show that 8,145 cases were found eligible for govt assistance, 4,042 were rejected as ineligible and 941 remain under inquiry. Of the eligible cases, 7,850 families have received Rs 1 lakh each, while 295 are still awaiting payment.
Ghadge, of the Young Whistleblowers Foundation, had sought district-wise and month-wise figures for the 54-month period. On July 24, the department’s public information officer, Snehal Sawant, said the information was available with individual district collector offices and advised him to approach them. Ghadge filed a first appeal on Aug 18. After a hearing on Sept 8, the department provided a consolidated statewide table but did not disclose the district-wise breakdown.
The missing data are crucial for identifying clusters of distress, comparing trends across districts and assessing whether govt interventions are working, he said.
Ghadge’s demand for wider financial protection dates back to June 21, 2023, when he wrote to then chief minister Eknath Shinde about families whose Rs 1 lakh compensation claims had been rejected. He proposed including suicide among the events covered by the Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana, so that every affected family would receive Rs 2 lakh irrespective of the cause of death.

'Why delay on RTI appeals?' asks Haryana Information Commission

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.

The Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC) has intensified scrutiny of First Appellate Authorities (FAAs), remanding cases where first appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act remain undecided or information is not supplied to applicants.
In a recent case related to an RTI application seeking information on alleged corruption at Jai Prakash Polytechnic, Damla, in Yamunanagar district, Chief Information Commissioner TVSN Prasad issued a show-cause notice to the FAA of the Technical Education Department for failing to dispose of the first appeal.
During the hearing, the FAA-cum-Special Secretary informed the Commission that the remand order had since been complied with and a speaking order was issued on October 16.
As a vigilance inquiry into the corruption allegations is still underway, the Commission directed the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to provide the inquiry report to the appellant after the investigation is completed.
It further stated that if any information is withheld under provisions of the RTI Act, the authority must issue a reasoned order specifying the relevant exemption clause and grounds for denial.
The Commission observed that remanding such cases to FAAs was helping improve compliance with the RTI Act and strengthening accountability in the information disclosure process.

Tripura Government Many Departments Face Questions over RTI Compliance, Outdated Websites Raise Transparency Concerns

TRIPURAINFO: Agartala: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
Several government departments in Tripura are facing allegations of failing to comply with the mandatory proactive disclosure requirements of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Concerns have been raised over outdated official websites, non-publication of revised service charges and taxes, and the alleged withholding of information relating to public services, welfare schemes and development projects.

The allegations have brought the implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act under scrutiny, particularly its provisions requiring public authorities to proactively disclose specified categories of information, maintain records systematically and make essential information accessible to citizens without requiring them to file individual RTI applications.
The issue has assumed significance amid complaints that citizens are sometimes compelled to depend on outdated information while accessing government services, paying statutory charges or purchasing essential commodities through the public distribution system.
The statutory obligation of proactive disclosure
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, lays down important obligations for public authorities regarding record management, publication of institutional information and suo motu disclosure.
Under Section 4(1)(b), public authorities are required to publish specified information concerning their organisation, functions and duties, the powers and responsibilities of officers, decision-making procedures, applicable rules and regulations, budget allocations, subsidies and other prescribed particulars.
Section 4(1)(c) requires public authorities to publish relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions affecting the public. Section 4(1)(d) provides for reasons to be given for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Section 4(2) further requires public authorities to make constant efforts to provide as much information as possible suo motu so that the public has to resort to the RTI mechanism as little as possible.
These provisions are intended to strengthen transparency, improve administrative accountability and reduce the need for citizens to submit repeated applications merely to obtain routine public information.
However, complaints in Tripura suggest that several departments may not be adequately fulfilling these responsibilities. Allegations include the non-publication or inadequate updating of citizens' charters, service fees, revised rates, departmental activities, budget estimates and details of development projects.
One of the latest complaints concerns the price of flour supplied through ration shops in Tripura.
According to the allegations, the Food Department's website continues to display the price of flour at Rs 13 per kilogram, whereas consumers are reportedly being charged Rs 15 per kilogram at ration shops.
If the revised rate has been officially implemented without the corresponding notification and timely updating of the publicly available price information, consumers could be left without a clear and accessible explanation of the applicable rate.
The alleged difference of Rs 2 per kilogram has raised questions about the transparency of the price revision, the availability of the relevant government order and the responsibility of the department to ensure that consumers receive accurate information.
The issue has also prompted criticism over the apparent contrast between publicity surrounding the distribution of free flour, sugar and mustard oil during the Puja season and the alleged lack of clear public information about the applicable prices of ration commodities.
Consumers have further raised concerns that the mandatory display of authorised commodity prices at fair-price shops is not consistently maintained. A clearly visible and updated price list would help beneficiaries verify the amount payable and question any unauthorised collection.
Similar concerns have been raised about alleged revisions in charges collected by several other government departments and public authorities.
The allegations cover the following areas:
Revenue Department: Land transfer and diversion charges, registration fees and related statutory payments.
Excise authorities: Duties and charges applicable to alcoholic beverages.
Municipal authorities: Building-plan approval fees, water charges and property taxes.
Power utilities: Electricity tariffs, billing rates and changes in subsidy arrangements.
Other departments: Service fees, administrative charges and revised rules governing public services.
According to complainants, the relevant websites in some cases continue to display old rates or do not provide sufficiently clear information about revised charges and the notifications under which they were introduced.
Several government websites are alleged to contain outdated information about departmental activities, scheme guidelines, rules and regulations. Citizens seeking to understand eligibility requirements, application procedures or the conditions attached to welfare schemes may consequently encounter conflicting or obsolete information.
The non-publication of citizens' charters and service standards can make it difficult for applicants to determine the documents required, the prescribed fee, the expected time for disposal of an application and the appropriate authority to approach in the event of delay.
Likewise, the absence of accessible budget estimates and project details can restrict public scrutiny of development expenditure.
Proactive disclosure is not merely a matter of uploading documents to a website. Information must also be accurate, sufficiently comprehensive, accessible and updated when relevant changes occur. Otherwise, a website may technically exist while failing to serve its intended purpose as a dependable source of public information.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal department for the implementation of the RTI Act at the Central level, has issued guidance and communications concerning proactive disclosure and compliance with the Act.

Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Information To Member As 'Personal' If Registrar Can Access Such Records : Supreme Court: By - Yash Mittal

Live Law: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) held that a member of a cooperative society cannot be denied information about the affairs of the cooperative society under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because the cooperative society doesn't come under the ambit of 'public authority'.
“…a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does not involve any public activity or interest.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasising that when a public authority has an access to the documents of a cooperative society under a different law then an information under the RTI cannot be concealed to its member.
The respondent, a member of the bank, had sought the two documents under the RTI Act from the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies. His request was initially rejected, but in the second round of proceedings, the State Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court upheld his right to access the records.
The bank approached the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not a “public authority” under the RTI Act and that the Registrar could access its records under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, only after deciding to initiate an inquiry.
Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran held that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act covers information relating to private bodies that a public authority can access under another law. The Registrar need not already possess the documents or decide to initiate an inquiry before accessing them.
According to the court, once the Registrar had the power to access the documents in possession of the Appellant-cooperative bank, then by virtue of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Appellant-bank was obligated to provide information to its member.
The Court also rejected the bank's reliance on the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which concern commercial confidence and personal information.
“The documents as referred to hereinabove neither encompasses any aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor of a commercial confidence affecting a competitive position; since already the bid is over and one Labour Contract Society has obtained the contract, the terms of which any Member of the Society would be concerned with. As far as clause (j) is concerned the information sought cannot be termed to be a personal information, since the details of the contract sought for, entered into by the appellant-Bank and the Minutes of the General Body Meeting, are sought for by a Member of the Society. That it does not have any relation to any public activity or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to decline the request, if the documents are otherwise accessible.”, the Court observed.
On the contrary, the Court said that the situation would have been different if the third party, being unconnected to the Appellant, raised an identical request.
“Every citizen would not have the right to ask for the documents since the concept of personal information cannot be restricted to a 'person' in flesh and blood and even applies to a private entity, with whose affairs every citizen cannot be found to have an interest, unless it has a relationship to a public activity (Section 8(1)(j). Neither the building contract nor the General Body Meeting concerns a party, totally unconnected with the Society.”, the Court observed.
The Court relied on its earlier decisions, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, to examine the scope of access to information relating to private bodies through public authorities.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
“As has been rightly pointed out by the 4th respondent, Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar or a person authorized by him. This can be done as per sub-section (1), as frequently as the Registrar may consider it necessary, which supervision includes 'an inspection of the books of the society'. We are hence, convinced that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is perfectly in order and in accordance with the provisions of law as also in consonance with the decisions cited. We, hence, find absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. The 2nd respondent shall call for the two documents immediately and in any event within two weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent.”, the Court held.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zulfikar Ali, AOR Mr. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Ms. Manjari Singh, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. For M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Respondent-in-person

K Muraleedharan Backs Exempting Two Keralam Vigilance Sections From RTI

Deccan Chronicle: Kerala: Monday, 26 October 2026.
Pinarayi VIjayan had claimed that the notification came after Vigilance records concerning the chief minister VD Satheesan had surfaced, and the government was trying to protect influential people accused of corruption

Keralam Health and Devaswom Minister K Muraleedharan (File Photo)

Keralam Health and Devaswom Minister K Muraleedharan on Sunday justified the government's move to exempt two sections of the state Vigilance department from the RTI Act, saying that it was done to prevent investigation from being hampered due to certain disclosures made to the media.
Muraleedharan assured that largely the people's right to seek information about the functioning of the department would remain unaffected as the government does not intend to hide anything.
The minister, while speaking to reporters, also rejected allegations that the move was aimed at protecting any prominent persons, including political leaders and elected representatives, as claimed by Leader of Opposition in the state assembly and former CM Pinarayi Vijayan a day ago.
"There is no need to rescue anyone as no prominent person was in need of any protection from corruption allegations. No such person is involved in any such matter. There were instances of information coming out in the media which were hampering investigations and therefore, some restrictions were imposed," he explained.
"The government will not take a stand to hide important documents under the Right to Information Act. The government will not hide anything from the public. So, there is no need for any concern," he added.
uraleedharan said that it was the Congress which had brought the RTI Act, but the transparency law was "diluted" by the BJP.
Vijayan on Saturday had accused the Congress-led UDF government of "suppressing transparency and protecting the corrupt" by exempting two sections of the state Vigilance department from the RTI Act.
He had alleged that the move was intended to conceal files relating to corruption allegations against political leaders and elected representatives.
He had claimed that the notification came after Vigilance records concerning the chief minister VD Satheesan had surfaced, and the government was trying to protect influential people accused of corruption.
He was referring to the notification issued by the state government recently bringing the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB directorate under the exemption granted to intelligence and security organisations under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The state government had earlier exempted eight state intelligence and security organisations from the law in 2006.
State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had defended the decision, saying confidentiality was essential for Vigilance investigations and functioning.
He had also claimed that the T sections did not, in reality, fall under the purview of the RTI Act.

Election Commission Cites ‘Trade Secrets’ to Deny Information on Software Used in SIR, RTI Reveals

The Wire: New Delhi: Monday, 26 October 2026.
In response to a RTI application by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, the Election Commission has declined the information saying that it relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act, 2005. 

Barricades installed outside the Election Commission of India's office in Delhi. Photo: PTI

Amid the ongoing uproar over the contentious special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India has declined to disclose the software it has used in the exercise to identify errors and anomalies in the voter rolls, a Right to Information (RTI) query has revealed.
In response to a RTI application by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, the Election Commission has declined the information saying that it relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act, 2005. The poll body added in its response dated October 16 that “no new software has been developed or procured for the SIR exercise,” and that electoral registration officers (EROs) decide on the inclusion or exclusion of an elector “on the basis of facts and records.”
Hindustan Times reported that in his RTI query, Ayub had sought to know the name and version of the software, application or AI platform used to detect errors or inconsistencies in voter data; whether such a system automatically flags records for verification, correction or deletion, and the workflow that follows. He also sought to know whether AI, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision support tools were used at any stage; the safeguards against false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors; and the authority that reviews or approves flagged anomalies before action is taken on a voter’s record.
While in response to the first question the Election Commission decline to provide information citing the Section 8(1)(d) exemption of the RTI Act, it also said that wit regard to automatic flagging or machine learning that the information sought  was a “clarification” that does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.
In response to the authority that reviews flagged anomalies, the RTI response cited Section 8(1)(g). This provision exempts information under the Act, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
The Election Commission’s response further added that under Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO of the concerned assembly constituency is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll of that constituency.
The revelations in the RTI come as 13 crore voters have been excluded following the SIR. Last month, The Indian Express had reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected 14 times in 10 months to the conduct of the exercise. The two election commissioners had also written to the cabinet secretary T.V. Somanathan. The Indian Express report had also noted that EROs had their access curtailed by the central IT team. 
Just last week The Wire reported that the ECI software had deleted 5.38 lakh voters in West Bengal through Form 7 objections without any person having filed them, with auto generated rejections without citing a reason. The Wire has also reported that in Bengal, the Election Commission filed 16 lakh appeals against included voters over the course of three days as the voter rolls were frozen for the assembly elections in April.

Lack Of Infrastructure No Excuse For Failure To Preserve Police Station CCTV Footage As Directed By SC: Allahabad High Court : By - Sparsh Upadhyay

Hindustan Times: Allahabad: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
Lack of resources, space, or infrastructure is no excuse for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's mandate to install CCTV cameras and preserve footage, the HC said.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that lack of resources, space or infrastructure is no answer to a general mandamus issued by the Supreme Court requiring installation of CCTV cameras and preservation of footage for the specified period of time in police stations.
The Court sought an affidavit from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ayodhya, explaining why the CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station was not preserved and provided to an applicant who sought it under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that once an application for CCTV footage was made within the prescribed 90-day period, the footage ought to have been preserved, even if the request for a copy was denied.
The petitioner (Praveen Kumar Dubey), had sought CCTV footage of the police station lockup for February 23, 2026, through an RTI application filed on May 9, 2026.
After the Public Information Officer denied the information, the petitioner filed the first and second appeals. However, the authorities took the stand that the 90-day period had expired.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved the High Court. The division bench observed that preserving the footage would have ensured that any subsequent order by a higher forum directing its disclosure did not become futile.
The High Court further noted that the SSP, Ayodhya, was in violation of the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh 2021, concerning the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and preservation of footage.
The Supreme Court's directions require CCTV systems capable of recording audio and video, with footage preserved for 18 months. Where the available equipment cannot store footage for 18 months, it must be preserved for at least one year.
The bench directed the SSP, Ayodhya, to file his own affidavit within one week, explaining why he had failed to preserve and provide the requisite CCTV footage.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 30, 2026.

Details of software used in SIR exempt from RTI, Election Commission cites 'trade secrets' : By Himanshi Dahiya

Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
It said no new software was developed or procured and that constituency-level electoral registration officers make decisions on voter inclusion or exclusion.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has declined to disclose the name and version of the software it used to identify errors and anomalies in voter rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, saying the information relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempt under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The panel, which has faced criticism amid allegations of irregularities in the controversial roll revision exercise, also said that “no new software has been developed or procured for the SIR exercise,” and that electoral registration officers (EROs) decide on the inclusion or exclusion of an elector “on the basis of facts and records.”
“The ERO of the concerned constituency is the statutory authority responsible for the preparation and revision of electoral roll of that constituency,” the poll panel said.
The reply, dated October 16, came in response to an RTI application filed by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, a social activist based in Karimnagar, Telangana.
Ayyub sought the name and version of software, application or AI platform used to detect errors or inconsistencies in voter data; whether such a system automatically flags records for verification, correction or deletion, and the workflow that follows; whether AI, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision support tools were used at any stage; the safeguards against false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors; and the authority that reviews or approves flagged anomalies before action is taken on a voter’s record.
In response to Ayyub’s first question, the ECI invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm a third party’s competitive position.
Regarding the queries covering automatic flagging, the use of AI or ML, and safeguards against wrongful flagging, the commission said the information sought was a “clarification” that does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.
On the question about who reviews flagged anomalies, the poll body cited Section 8(1)(g), which exempts information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of any person or reveal the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. It added that under Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO of the concerned assembly constituency is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll.
Responding to disclosures in the RTI, former CEC OP Rawat said that the activist must file an appeal. “This is a legal matter and the applicant must file an appeal to the competent authorities to seek answers to questions ECI is evading,” Rawat said.
ECI has been under pressure over SIR – which has already deleted 130 million names from India’s electoral rolls – and other allegations. These concerns follow an investigation by The Indian Express that said election commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written dissents and objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026 and even wrote to the cabinet secretary. It also alleged that election officials found their access to the ECI software curtailed by the central IT team. ECI, for its part, said differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberation and that all its digital platforms operated under strict data security protocols.
HT this February reported that some of the problems in the West Bengal SIR have their roots in ECI’s Electoral Registration Officer Network (ERONET) portal, senior officials from the IT division of the poll body said.

Can’t use RTI to settle personal scores, says Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has cautioned against using the Right to Information (RTI) Act to settle personal scores, observing that such applications can divert public authorities’ resources and obstruct their functioning.

The observations were made by state information commissioner Bhupinder Batth while dismissing an appeal by a Kapurthala resident seeking information about a govt-approved underground pipeline in Jalandhar Kaulpur Minor from the chief engineer, canals, water resources department.
The appellant had sought details of the pipeline’s approved length from the head to the tail of the canal outlet, beneficiary farmers, financial allocation and respective contributions of the govt and beneficiaries, as well as the number of openings and their distance from the head at RD 38315L.
During the hearing, the appellant maintained that complete information had not been provided. The department submitted that it had already supplied the information and that the deficiencies subsequently pointed out by the appellant differed from the queries in the original RTI application.
After examining the records, the commission found that the department had provided an appropriate response to three of the four queries relating to the pipeline’s length, funding and openings. The appellant remained dissatisfied with the response to the query seeking the list of beneficiary farmers.
The commission observed that the appellant was seeking redressal of a grievance through a second appeal, which fell beyond the scope of the RTI Act. “The information sought is purely for the purpose to settle personal scores,” the order stated.
The commission said it had a duty to prevent what it described as “blatant misuse” of the RTI Act, adding that such practices could undermine public faith in the law and prevent public authorities from focusing on transparency.
Describing the appellant’s actions as “fishing operations”, the commission termed them “a misuse rather abuse of the RTI Act with unsavoury motives”. It further observed that the cases before it were “vexatious and not bona fide” efforts to promote transparency and accountability.
The commission said dealing with such applications adversely affected the resources of public authorities. Finding the appeal devoid of merit, Batth ordered that the case be closed and disposed of.

UDF govt move to shield Vigilance files from RTI sparks uproar :Rajesh Abraham

New Indian Express: Kochi: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
The Kerala government has exempted the VACB’s first and second T Branch sections from the RTI Act through an October 22 Gazette notification.

The UDF government’s move to shield two key sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the Right to Information (RTI) Act has triggered a storm of criticism, with activists alleging that the exemption could render the transparency law toothless and provide a convenient cover for corruption-related information.
Through a notification issued in an Extraordinary Gazette on Thursday, October 22, the government exempted the first and second sections of the T (Top Secret) branch of the VACB from the ambit of the RTI Act. The move, however, has raised questions about the government’s intention, the timing of the notification and the legality of selectively shielding sections within an organisation, rather than exempting an entire intelligence or security organisation as envisaged under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Dr A A Hakkim, former State Information Commissioner who played a pivotal role in making the Justice Hema Committee report public, said the exemption could not be used to bypass the safeguards built into the law. “The primary objective of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to curb corruption. The Act does not permit information relating to corruption or human rights violations to be withheld merely on the ground that an organisation has been exempted under Section 24,” he said.
Hakkim pointed to the timing of the order, which came shortly after certain information was disclosed through the RTI mechanism last week, raising legitimate doubts about the haste with which the government acted. He also questioned the procedure adopted by the government when the Legislative Assembly is in session.
Section 24(4) requires notifications issued under the provision to be laid before the state legislature, a statutory requirement that, according to him, has not been complied with. The State Information Commission too, appears to have been kept in the dark, he said.
The exemption also raises concerns about whether reports could be withheld even after an inquiry or investigation has concluded. While Section 8(1)(h) permits withholding information if disclosure would impede an investigation, apprehension or prosecution, such protection cannot automatically be extended to completed investigations. “The fundamental legal question is whether Section 24(4) can be invoked to impose a blanket restriction on information that is otherwise not exempt from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9,” Hakkim said, calling for clarity on the necessity, timing, legal basis and scope of the notification.
RTI activist M T Thomas said he would challenge the government order in the High Court, questioning the very basis for creating exemptions for two sections within the Vigilance department. He argued that the government could effectively place files it did not want disclosed under the top-secret classification, shutting out public scrutiny without a transparent system of safeguards.
“Any queries that are uncomfortable, especially those related to corruption, can be put on the T1 and T2 tables,” an RTI activist, who did not wish to be named, said.
The activist argued that Section 24 could not be used as a blanket shield against disclosure, particularly when the Act expressly safeguards information concerning corruption and human rights violations. “This is a colourable exercise of misuse of power,” the RTI activist said, alleging that queries concerning corruption involving ministers and MLAs could simply be classified as top secret and denied to the public.
He recalled a similar attempt during Oommen Chandy government’s tenure. Later, when Jacob Thomas was Vigilance director general under the LDF government, the top-secret classification was removed, bringing the relevant files back within the RTI framework.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan has come down heavily on the UDF government for its decision to exclude Vigilance ‘T’ sections from under the purview of the Right To Information Act. Slamming the government, Pinarayi alleged that the move was aimed at covering up corruption. He urged the AICC leadership to clarify whether an anti-democratic move was carried out with its silent permission. The notification has come at a time when vigilance documents against the chief minister have come out. It’s evident that the notification was issued in a haste to protect the corrupt, he said.

New information commission faces a bigger task than clearing complaints : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Friday, 23 October 2026.
After more than two years of uncertainty, Bangladesh finally has a new Information Commission. We congratulate the newly appointed chief information commissioner the country’s first woman to hold the post and the two other commissioners, and wish them success. Their appointment brings relief to citizens and civil society organisations that have persistently called for the restoration of this vital institution.

For about two years, they have highlighted the consequences of leaving the commission without commissioners. Conscious citizens, while continuing to exercise their rights under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009, lacked an effective avenue for redress when public authorities refused to provide information. With commissioners now in place, the institution can resume hearing complaints and appeals and take action within its statutory mandate. The greater challenge, however, lies elsewhere.
The commissioners’ responsibility is not only to dispose of complaints but also to help replace the country’s entrenched administrative culture of secrecy with one of transparency and accountability. The RTI Act’s fundamental objective empowering citizens to understand how public authorities function, scrutinise their activities, and hold them accountable remains far from being achieved. Bureaucratic resistance, inadequate public awareness, and weak institutional capacity have contributed to this failure. Above all, successive governments have lacked a sustained commitment to openness, while successive Information Commissions have failed to use their statutory powers effectively to challenge official secrecy.
The new commission, therefore, must be more than a forum for settling individual disputes. When information is refused, it should carefully examine the reasons, determine whether the refusal was lawful, and ensure that appropriate remedies or penalties are applied where warranted. Securing eventual disclosure alone may leave the underlying violation or the broader culture of secrecy unaddressed.
The RTI Act provides for penalties for specified violations, including unjustified refusal to provide information and deliberate obstruction. Yet previous commissions appeared reluctant to exercise these powers decisively, risking the impression that non-compliance carries little consequence. The new commissioners should enforce the law firmly, fairly, and consistently, paying particular attention to repeated or deliberate violations. A few well-reasoned decisions imposing warranted sanctions could do more to change official behaviour than numerous awareness seminars.
That said, some information may legitimately be withheld under the law. But exemptions from disclosure for reasons set out in the law are exceptions to the principle of openness, not excuses to be used as convenient. A public authority invoking an exemption must identify the relevant legal provision and explain precisely why it applies. Merely citing the act should not suffice. The commission must independently scrutinise such explanations, especially when public expenditure, essential services, or government decisions are involved. Where only part of a document is exempt from disclosure, it should consider whether the remainder can be released.
As discussed in an earlier article, Sri Lanka’s RTI Commission and courts, in a case concerning former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s departure during a political crisis, distinguished sensitive security information from details of public expenditure. While protecting information legitimately exempt from disclosure, they upheld the right to access non-exempt information. The lesson is clear: claims of secrecy must withstand rigorous legal scrutiny.
As a statutory adjudicatory body, the Information Commission should issue reasoned decisions that identify the issues, consider both parties’ arguments, apply the relevant legal provisions, and explain its conclusions. Brief directions may settle individual disputes but do little to establish consistent interpretations of the law. Publishing significant decisions in an accessible, searchable format would also guide officials and applicants, promote consistency, and gradually build a valuable body of RTI jurisprudence. Attention must also be given to establishing an effective follow-up and monitoring mechanism, including accountability measures to ensure that concerned designated officers implement decisions in a timely manner.
We have previously documented how ordinary citizens have sought information about schools, hospitals, social protection, land, public works, local public resources, etc. In northern Bangladesh, applicants have questioned the disposal of government trees, investigated abandoned projects, and demanded better services. Some have faced intimidation from officials unwilling to accept their right to ask questions. The commission should respond promptly to such allegations of unlawful refusal, harassment or retaliation, taking appropriate action within its powers. Women, rural residents, and disadvantaged applicants deserve particular attention. 
The backlog of cases accumulated during the prolonged absence of commissioners also demands a published, time-bound plan for disposing of pending cases. The RTI regime’s success cannot be measured solely by the number of applications received or complaints resolved, however. Public authorities must also proactively disclose important information, including their functions, decisions, budgets, expenditure and services, as required by the law.
It bears repeating how vital it is that the commission monitors compliance, publishes its findings, promotes sound record management, and ensures that information officers receive adequate training. It could also publish comparative assessments of public authorities’ disclosure performance using transparent criteria. Such measures would help make openness a routine administrative practice rather than an exception secured through complaints.
The commission must also practise the transparency it demands by regularly publishing its decisions, penalties, compliance rates, and case statistics. It should also consult journalists, civil society organisations, and grassroots RTI users. Above all, it must act independently of political and bureaucratic pressure. The government, for its part, must provide adequate resources while respecting that independence.
In the final analysis, the commissioners inherit not simply a backlog of cases needing adjudication but also an unfinished democratic mission. Their success in the long term will be measured by whether public officials become more willing to disclose information and citizens more confident in demanding it. They take office amid high expectations, shaped by both the commission’s prolonged inactivity and the changed political environment post-uprising. We hope they will rise to the challenge and ensure that citizens’ right to know is not merely a promise enshrined in law but a reality in everyday life.

---

Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are, respectively, the chairman and deputy director (RTI) of Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.

---

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Special Flight Returns (SFR-II) of PM’s foreign visits can be withheld under RTI Act on security grounds: Delhi High Court : By Ritu

SCC Online: New Delhi: Friday, 23 October 2026.
The Court held CIC erred in directing disclosure of SFR-II records, as redaction could not remove the security risks.

Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order dated 8 July 2020 directing disclosure of Prime Minister’s special flight returns (SFRs) records, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J., held that SFRs containing details of the Prime Minister’s foreign air travel can be withheld under Section 8(1)(a) and (g), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), where disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Court set aside the CIC’s direction to disclose the records, holding that “redacting the names of security personnel alone could not eliminate the potential risks to the Prime Minister’s security.
The Court observed that,
“The mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the Hon’ble Prime Minister does not, by itself, justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits.”
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the respondent sought information under the RTI Act, concerning foreign visits undertaken by the Prime Ministers of India in Indian Air Force aircraft from 1 April 2013 onwards. He specifically requested copies of Parts I and Part II of the SFR relating to the visits of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The Indian Air Force furnished certain travel information but refused to disclose the SFRs, citing the sensitive nature of the records and exemptions under the RTI Act. The first appellate authority upheld the denial.
On appeal, the CIC, by its order dated 8 July 2020, directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of the available and relevant SFR-II records. Challenging this direction, the Central Public Information Officer approached the Delhi High Court.
Issue for Consideration
Whether the CIC could direct disclosure of SFRs concerning the Prime Minister’s foreign visits after redacting the identities and particulars of security personnel, when such disclosure could compromise national security and personal safety?
Analysis
The Court stated that though the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, but the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against other public interests, particularly the confidentiality of sensitive information and national security. It relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it was emphasised that the RTI Act requires a reasonable and balanced approach to reconciling transparency with the protection of competing public interests.
The Court noted the Air Force’s contention that SFR-II records contained interconnected particulars, including passenger names, designations, appointments, identification numbers, flight references, passenger strength and agency details. It accepted the Air Force’s submission that disclosure of these particulars, even after redaction of direct identifiers, could enable the reconstruction of sensitive security arrangements by correlating the information with material already available in the public domain.
The Court noted that “Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act specifically exempts information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, its relations with foreign States, or lead to incitement of an offence. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act specifically exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.”
Relying on Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, the Court observed that Section 8(1)(a) and (g) provide exemptions concerning national security and information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or physical safety. It also referred to Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61, on the scope of the protection under Section 8(1)(g).
The Court held that the CIC and the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies on whether disclosure could jeopardise national security or endanger the Prime Minister. Such an assessment fell primarily within the domain of agencies responsible for the Prime Minister’s security. (V.K. Singh v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4342)
The Court further held that the expenditure of public funds on foreign visits, by itself, did not establish sufficient larger public interest to justify disclosure of information that could compromise security arrangements.
Decision
The Court held that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of SFR-II records after redaction of the names and identifying particulars of security personnel. The Air Force was justified in invoking Section 8(1)(a) and (g), RTI Act in view of the potential implications for national security and the Prime Minister’s life and physical safety.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the CIC’s impugned order dated 8 July 2020.
[Central Public Information Officer, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Indian Air Force v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (Retd.), W.P.(C) 10165/2020, decided on 15-10-2026]

RTI reveals Cabinet declined to act on Election Commissioners’ complaints against senior official

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, 23 October 2026.
The Cabinet Secretariat refused to address the grievances submitted by two Election Commissioners regarding the conduct of a senior official, noting that their letters were written in an "individual capacity" and that in the absence of "any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate", according to documents disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi

Records made available to RTI campaigner Commodore Lokesh K. Batra (retd) show that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi sent two independent letters on July 29 to India's top civil servant, Cabinet Secretary T.V. Somanathan, raising serious concerns regarding Senior Deputy Election Commissioner (Sr DEC) Maneesh Garg, an IAS officer posted to the poll body by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) since September 2, 2024.
The Indian Express had reported in September that both Sandhu and Joshi wrote separately to Somanathan after internal orders were issued regarding work allocation. The Commissioners feared this order threatened to centralise powers at the Election Commission headquarters to insert, delete, and alter voter records, rather than leaving those functions with state-level authorities.
In an official response on September 26, the Election Commission (EC) clarified that the contested work reallocation directives drafted by the officer were never enforced, following instructions issued by the two Commissioners.
The poll authority maintained that the representations sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary strictly related to an officer on deputation, rather than matters regarding internal policy or the information technology division.
"Both the ECs have stated that Shri Garg, after assuming the charge as link officer of DEC (Admn), has issued an order regarding work allocation of equivalent and senior officers to him without discussing the revised work allocation with the Commission or the officers concerned. Further, the aforementioned ECs have stated that this has happened despite repeated oral and written instructions to all concerned officers against taking such actions without prior discussion/approval of the Commission," an internal Cabinet note provided under the RTI response said.
The Commissioners had contended that Garg issued a directive altering work responsibilities among senior deputy election commissioners, deputy election commissioners, directors general, and officers of parallel rank without consulting or intimating the Commission or the Commissioners involved.
They maintained that this step was taken in spite of repeated verbal and written directives prohibiting such structural changes without preliminary Commission discussion or clearance. Joshi added that when he asked for the relevant file from the Administration Division, it was not provided to him.
The Commissioners stressed that Garg's actions constituted an outright breach of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
A Cabinet note prepared on August 3 concerning the complaint noted: "In this connection, we may request the Chief Election Commissioner for his opinion on the issue. Accordingly, a draft DO is put up for approval, please."
The following day, an additional draft note advised that taking steps based solely on letters from two Election Commissioners—without a formal corporate submission from the Commission in its entirety —could be viewed as "interference in the functioning of the constitutional body".
"The Commission is a Constitutional Body and is insulated from executive interference by design to ensure that it functions independently and in a transparent manner. The working and functioning of the Commission are governed by the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission. The above communications are from the Election Commissioners in their individual capacity and, while they must be taken with due seriousness, they cannot be seen as a formal communication from the Commission as a whole," the note affirmed.
The note added that while Garg was deputed via the ACC, he is presently an officer serving the Election Commission of India; consequently, his professional conduct and duties must be regulated and supervised strictly under the Commission's internal guidelines.
Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the Commission's business must be conducted unanimously wherever possible, with any divergence of opinion resolved by majority vote, the Cabinet note observed.
"Election Commissioners have sent these communications for appropriate action; however, in the absence of any official communication from the Commission as a whole, any action at this stage may be inappropriate. It may also be construed as interference in the functioning of the Constitutional Body. Hence, it would be appropriate to send acknowledgement to both Election Commissioners with a copy to PPS to CEC for information of CEC," the record highlighted.