In 6 years, Maha lost 501 lives to man-animal conflict : RTI

The Times of India: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
Man-wildlife conflict across the state has claimed 501 human lives, injured nearly 4,000 people, killed more than 30,000 livestock and devastated over five lakh crop holdings. The data shared by forest department under the Right to Information Act also throws light on the compensation system which is struggling to keep pace with the escalating conflict.

The figures obtained by Nagpur-based activist Abhay Kolarkar doesn't focus on isolated incidents, but brings to light a widening crisis stretching across tiger corridors and forest-fringe villages.
As per the RTI reply human fatalities rose sharply from 82 in 2020-21 to a peak of 111 in 2022-23. The figures dipped before picking up again in the current year, with 91 deaths recorded in 2025-26.
From 401 injured in 2020-21, the figure surged more than threefold to 1,312 in 2023-24, suggesting either a rise in encounters or greater reporting, or both. The year 2023-24 also recorded the single worst livestock toll: over 7,152 cattle killed and 17,740 injured.
Crop damage figures compound the rural distress. From roughly 35,100 crop-damage incidents in 2020-21, the number exploded to over 2.11 lakh in 2023-24 nearly a sixfold rise in three years before partially easing to 1.63 lakh in 2024-25 and 61,458 cases in 2025-26.
The Maharashtra govt compensates victims through a structured policy notified via Gazette in February 2024. Compensation for human fatalities is Rs25 lakh; permanent disability Rs7.5 lakh; serious injuries Rs5 lakh. Cattle deaths are compensated at 75% of market value, capped at Rs70,000 per large animal. Yet the aggregate payout totalling Rs763.10 crore over six years has consistently lagged the scale of documented losses.
Despite rising incidents, compensation disbursed annually under Mahakosh moved from Rs80.22 crore in 2020-21 to Rs184.78 crore in 2024-25, a doubling over five years, but critics argue processing delays and documentation burdens leave many victims, particularly tribal farmers, without timely relief.
Kolarkar says the data underscores the urgency of a dedicated man-animal conflict mitigation policy. "These are not statistics. Each number is a family that lost its breadwinner or a farmer who lost an entire harvest," he told TOI.

CIC flags ‘persistent crisis’ of suicides across IIT campuses, recommends high-level panels

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
Observing a “persistent crisis” of suicides across IIT campuses, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended the constitution of high-level committees at the institutes to address factors contributing to such deaths, underlining the “dire need” for corrective measures.

The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act (Express photo/ representative)

The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur. The Commission upheld that the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed, but said that institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said there is a “persistent crisis” of multiple suicides annually across IIT campuses, with a “high concentration” at institutions such as IIT Kanpur and IIT Kharagpur, and there was a “dire need” for universities to set up panels to address factors leading to such incidents, if not already constituted.
The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act.
The order assumes significance against the backdrop of the recently published National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, which showed that while overall suicides in India marginally declined in 2024, student suicides continued to rise.
According to the NCRB’s “Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2024” report, student suicides increased from 13,892 in 2023 to 14,488 in 2024 –a rise of nearly 4.3 per cent. Students accounted for 8.5 per cent of all suicide victims in 2024, up from 8.1 per cent the previous year. The data translates to nearly 40 student suicides every day, or almost one every 36 minutes.
The CIC order came on appeals filed by IIT alumnus Dheeraj Kumar Singh, who sought details such as age, gender, caste or category, academic programme, native state and location of death of students, scholars and research staff who died by suicide in IITs since 2005.
During the hearing, Singh told the Commission that he was running an NGO for the rehabilitation and mental counselling of students and wanted the information to analyse the root causes behind suicides and strengthen counselling efforts.
The IITs, however, denied disclosure of personal details such as names, age and caste, citing privacy exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission upheld their stand, saying the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed. “It is relevant to mention here that with the introduction of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Protection and Data Privacy Act, 2023 which came into force w.e.f November 14, 2025, which establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy,” the order said.
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj told PTI that the case demonstrated how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act “severely curtails people’s right to information, even when that data is vital to public interest”.
“Demographic details, particularly caste data, are essential to identifying whether suicides are disproportionately prevalent among specific marginalised communities. Withholding this information directly stifles crucial public debate on appropriate measures necessary to mitigate this crisis,” she claimed.
At the same time, the CIC said institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives to reduce the need for repeated RTI applications. Transparency activist Amrita Johri termed the CIC’s recommendation for constituting high-level committees and proactively disclosing related information under Section 4 of the RTI Act a “positive step”.
“Details about the existence of such committees will be most useful as it will enable students, teachers and parents to reach out for help or with suggestions on steps that can be taken to address the crisis. Transparency will facilitate an open and honest engagement to prevent student suicides,” she said.
“Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of families, friends and communities,” the NCRB report noted.

Haryana yet to recover ₹2.9 crore RTI penalties from 1,700 errant officers : By Neeraj Mohan , Rohtak

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
As per the information, the panchayat department emerged as the biggest defaulter with pending penalties of over ₹1,34,86,833, followed by the urban local bodies department with over 80.96 lakh

Even as the Haryana government takes strict measures to recover penalties from 1,726 state public information officers (SPIOs) across 16 departments for not providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a report from the Haryana Lokayukta has revealed that nearly ₹2.95 crore in imposed penalties remains unrecovered.
The report, in the response of a complaint filed by RTI activist PP Kapoor, who alleged that despite penalties being imposed by the Haryana State Information Commission, many officers neither deposited the amount nor faced effective recovery proceedings, even as the state government has issued directions in February this year for the recovery of the penalties from the salaries of the errant SPIOs.
As per the information, the panchayat department emerged as the biggest defaulter with pending penalties of over ₹1,34,86,833, followed by the urban local bodies department with over 80.96 lakh, followed by the education department with over ₹22.77 lakh, registrar cooperative societies with ₹19.99 lakh, revenue department with ₹14.76 lakh, urban estate department with ₹13.08 lakh, and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) with ₹10.94 lakh.
As per the RTI reply, the Lokayukta proceedings noted that despite earlier communications issued by the Haryana chief secretary in 2019 and 2020 directing recovery of penalties, the amount remained largely unpaid for years.
On the directions of the lokayukta, the state government formulated a proper mechanism for recovery of penalties from defaulting officers. Following this, the state government issued fresh directions on February 16 this year, mandating recovery directly from salaries or pensions of defaulting SPIOs through drawing and disbursing officers (DDOs).
Under the new recovery structure, Class-A officers will face deductions of ₹10,000 per month from salary or ₹5,000 from pension, while Class-B officers will pay ₹7,000, and Class-C officers ₹4,000 per month until full recovery of penalties. In cases where an officer has died, the penalty amount will be waived.
The report also revealed that penalties imposed on serving sarpanches would be recovered at the rate of ₹3,000 per month from their honorarium, while recovery proceedings against former sarpanches could be initiated through deputy commissioners under revenue laws.
According to Kapoor, the lokayukta report reveals that the fresh mechanism has started showing results, and the state government has so far recovered ₹12,48,876 from defaulting officers after issuance of the February 2026 directions.
Closing the complaint, lokayukta justice Hari Pal Verma recommended that the names of officers against whom RTI penalties remain pending should be uploaded on government websites. The report also directed the State Information Commission to submit quarterly progress reports regarding defaulting officers to their respective department heads.

RTI Special | In 2012, the Government Released CBI Director Selection Records. In 2026, It Refused : Tarushi Aswani

The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.

Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired), the RTI applicant who was refused the information, pointed out that the CBI 'itself occupies a central role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency … particularly significant'.

In 2012, the Union government disclosed detailed records relating to the appointment of the CBI director under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, including selection committee minutes, internal file notings, the names of officers under consideration and correspondence between top government departments.

Fourteen years later, the same process has effectively been declared confidential.

In response to an RTI application filed by transparency campaigner Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has refused to disclose records related to the appointment of the new CBI director, citing exemptions under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. That process had culminated on May 13 this year with Praveen Sood receiving a second one-year extension in office.

The refusal marks a sharp departure from the government’s own past practice.

“You can check the 55-page document of the 2012 RTI on the CBI director's appointment,” Commodore Batra told The Wire. “In 2012, the DoPT provided my RTI [response] with complete information and answers as requested concerning selection of the CBI director, why denial of information now? I have asked exactly the same question 14 years later, they responded in a jiffy that they cannot share the information,” he said.

Commodore Batra had first sought information in November 2012, when then-CBI director A.P. Singh was nearing retirement. His RTI application sought details of the selection process for the next CBI director, including the names of shortlisted IPS officers, file notings, selection committee records and copies of relevant files.

The DoPT in January 2013 then disclosed extensive records spanning dozens of pages to the queries Commodore Batra had raised.

Exclusively accessed by The Wire, these documents from 2012 provide a rare insight into the internal workings of one of the country’s most sensitive appointments.

The records include minutes of meetings of the selection committee held on October 18 and October 30, 2012, under the chairmanship of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The meetings were attended by the Union home secretary, secretary (personnel) and vigilance commissioners.

The documents show that the government considered 61 IPS officers from the 1974 to 1977 batches for the post of CBI director. The records disclosed names, cadre details, empanelment status and vigilance-related information of the officers under consideration.

Internal file notings reveal, among other things, deliberations over whether IPS officers from the 1978 batch could be considered for appointment, with references made to a Supreme Court direction that only officers from the four senior-most batches as of the incumbent CBI director's retirement be considered, and opinions received from the law ministry.

The records also include discussions concerning complaints and allegations against some officers under consideration, including Gujarat cadre IPS officer Kuldeep Sharma. One communication sent by then-Gujarat chief secretary A.K. Joti raised objections to Sharma’s possible appointment and referred to pending proceedings and allegations against him.

The government eventually appointed Ranjit Sinha as CBI director on November 22, 2012.

On May 20, 2026, Commodore Batra filed a fresh RTI application seeking similar information regarding the appointment process that ended with Sood receiving another extension as director. The application sought details of the shortlisting process, names of officers considered, records of discussions and minutes of the selection committee meeting reportedly held around May 12, 2026.

A mere five days later, the DoPT rejected the request.

According to the RTI response dated May 26, 2026, the information sought pertained to “confidential records, internal deliberations, assessment reports, file notings, correspondence and evaluation materials connected with the process of selection/appointment of Director, CBI”.

The response further stated that the requested records included those that are held in a “fiduciary capacity and contain personal information relating to third-party officers/candidates,” and that disclosure “would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the selection process.”

The DoPT therefore denied the information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Section 8(1)(e) exempts information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship from disclosure, while section 8(1)(j) broadly protects personal information from disclosure. The latter was controversially amended by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act to widen the scope of information it exempts.

However, the department’s refusal raises questions because many of the categories of records now being treated as exempt were previously disclosed by the same public authority in 2012.

The 2026 response does not invoke section 10 of the RTI Act, which deals with severability and allows public authorities to redact exempt portions while disclosing the remaining material.

Commodore Batra believes that this omission is significant because even if portions of the records contained personal or sensitive information, non-exempt portions could still have been disclosed after redaction.

The appointment of the CBI director is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and involves a high-powered committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of India or a nominee judge.

For Commodore Batra, the issue is ultimately about inconsistency. “The CBI itself occupies a central role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency and institutional independence particularly significant. When the same information was disclosed earlier, why should the entire process now be treated as secret?” he asked.

The DoPT’s refusal to disclose records related to the process behind the appointment of the next CBI director also comes amid wider concerns over opacity in appointments to key institutions and the conduct of the selection process itself.

Earlier this month, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi issued a dissent note following the meeting of the high-powered committee tasked with selecting the next CBI director. Gandhi alleged that crucial records concerning candidates, including self-appraisal and “360-degree” assessment reports, were not shared with him in advance.

In the note, he said members were expected to assess records relating to 69 officers during the meeting itself, calling the exercise a “mockery” aimed at formalising the selection of a “pre-decided candidate”.

This adds another layer to questions surrounding transparency in the CBI director's appointment process, particularly as the government refuses to disclose related records under the RTI Act.

The controversy also comes on the back of broader concerns raised by transparency campaigners over appointments to institutions meant to safeguard accountability.

This past December, a panel headed by the prime minister recommended the appointment of a new chief information commissioner and eight information commissioners to the Central Information Commission (CIC), the statutory final appellate body for RTI queries concerning the Union government. Prior to that, eight of the CIC's ten information commissioner posts remained vacant for a year after the government solicited applications to fill in the vacancies.

Against this backdrop, the DoPT’s refusal to disclose records that it had previously released during the 2012 CBI director appointment process has renewed questions about whether transparency standards around key institutional appointments are steadily narrowing.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission pulls up PIO for delaying information under RTI Act

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 28 May 2026.

The Tamil Nadu Information Commission came down heavily on the officials responsible for sharing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the office of the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai district.
Imposing penalty on the officials for the “harassment” and “unreasonable delay” in providing the information called for by E.L. Sagayaraj, Information Commissioner V.P.R. Elamparithi awarded a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner.
The petitioner had requested details of the interviews held on February 26, 2025, in the Don Bosco School, Perambur, under the Act. Since there was no response from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Sagayaraj moved an appeal before the TNIC. 
After hearing both sides, Mr. Elamparithi said it had been established that information was not provided to the petitioner within 30 days and no valid reasons were given by the PIO to explain the same. He invoked provisions under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Act and appointed the Chief Education Officer, Chennai district, as the PIO in the case.
Awarding a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner for the mental agony he had to suffer owing to the delay in getting information, the Commission also sought an explanation from the PIO as to why a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be levied and disciplinary action not be initiated against her.
Mr. Elamparithi directed the authorities to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within two weeks and report compliance to the order.

'Dire need for corrective measures': CIC flags 'persistent crisis' of suicides in IIT campuses, suggests high-level panels

Deccan Herald: New Delhi: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.
The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur.

File image of the Central Information Commission building(L), a view of the IIT MadrasCredit: PTI Photos

Observing a "persistent crisis" of suicides across IIT campuses, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended the constitution of high-level committees at the institutes to address factors contributing to such deaths, underlining the "dire need" for corrective measures.
The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur.
The Commission upheld that the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed, but said that institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said there is a "persistent crisis" of multiple suicides annually across IIT campuses, with a "high concentration" at institutions such as IIT Kanpur and IIT Kharagpur, and there was a "dire need" for universities to set up panels to address factors leading to such incidents, if not already constituted.
The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act.
The order assumes significance against the backdrop of the recently published National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, which showed that while overall suicides in India marginally declined in 2024, student suicides continued to rise.
According to the NCRB's "Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2024" report, student suicides increased from 13,892 in 2023 to 14,488 in 2024 – a rise of nearly 4.3 per cent. Students accounted for 8.5 per cent of all suicide victims in 2024, up from 8.1 per cent the previous year. The data translates to nearly 40 student suicides every day, or almost one every 36 minutes.
The CIC order came on appeals filed by IIT alumnus Dheeraj Kumar Singh, who sought details such as age, gender, caste or category, academic programme, native state and location of death of students, scholars and research staff who died by suicide in IITs since 2005.
During the hearing, Singh told the Commission that he was running an NGO for the rehabilitation and mental counselling of students and wanted the information to analyse the root causes behind suicides and strengthen counselling efforts.
The IITs, however, denied disclosure of personal details such as names, age and caste, citing privacy exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission upheld their stand, saying the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed.
"It is relevant to mention here that with the introduction of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Protection and Data Privacy Act, 2023 which came into force w.e.f November 14, 2025, which establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy," the order said.
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj told PTI that the case demonstrated how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act "severely curtails people's right to information, even when that data is vital to public interest".
"Demographic details, particularly caste data, are essential to identifying whether suicides are disproportionately prevalent among specific marginalised communities. Withholding this information directly stifles crucial public debate on appropriate measures necessary to mitigate this crisis," she claimed.
At the same time, the CIC said institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives to reduce the need for repeated RTI applications.
Transparency activist Amrita Johri termed the CIC's recommendation for constituting high-level committees and proactively disclosing related information under Section 4 of the RTI Act a "positive step".
"Details about the existence of such committees will be most useful as it will enable students, teachers and parents to reach out for help or with suggestions on steps that can be taken to address the crisis. Transparency will facilitate an open and honest engagement to prevent student suicides," she said.
"Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of families, friends and communities," the NCRB report noted.

TMC Penalised Rs 10 Lakh Over RTI Delay

News Band: Thane: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.

In a landmark ruling strengthening citizens’ rights under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the State Information Commission (SIC) has ordered the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to an applicant for causing a prolonged delay in providing information.
The historic order was passed by State Information Commissioner Shekhar Channe of the Konkan Bench, who termed the case a serious example of bureaucratic negligence and administrative apathy.
The case was filed by Janba Parshuram Patil, who had sought official property transfer records from 1986 to 1996 related to a property under the jurisdiction of TMC. However, the civic administration repeatedly delayed providing the documents, citing reasons such as the age of the records and the non-existence of the ward committee from that period.
Frustrated by the prolonged delay, Patil approached the SIC through a second appeal.
Invoking Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed TMC to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to the applicant within 30 days through cheque payment.
During the hearing, Commissioner Shekhar Channe observed that technical difficulties in locating old records cannot become an excuse to deny citizens their legal rights. He stressed that government records are essential for citizens to defend their rights, especially when related court cases are pending.
“A citizen cannot be deprived of justice merely because the administration failed to preserve or trace records,” the Commission observed.
Representing TMC, Assistant Commissioner Balu Pichad informed the Commission that the corporation had not deliberately withheld information and had recently formed a “Special Search Team” consisting of clerks and peons to trace old files. He also stated that show-cause notices and disciplinary action had been initiated against negligent employees.
While acknowledging the corrective steps taken by the corporation, the Commission ruled that the delay had already caused significant hardship and financial damage to the applicant.
Legal experts have described the verdict as a “historic and balanced judgment” that reinforces transparency, accountability and the spirit of the RTI Act. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for May 27, 2026.

RTI not a tool to create terror among public authorities: Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has observed that the Right to Information Act cannot be used as a tool to "create terror" among public authorities or to exploit them with ulterior motives.

The observation was made by state information commissioner Bhupinder Batth while disposing of an appeal filed by a Bathinda resident, who sought information from the Local Govt Department. The commission noted that several orders were passed in the case earlier, including an order dated Jan 5, 2023, by former state information commissioner Lt Gen Ajae Kumar Sharma (retd), through which a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent Public Information Officer.
After Lt Gen Sharma demitted office on completion of his tenure on Aug 4, 2023, the case was reallocated to the Bench of former state information commissioner Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon. However, the appellant expressed dissatisfaction and lack of faith in that Bench. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the file was sent to the registry for transfer to another bench. The matter was then reallocated to the Bench of Bhupinder Batth.
On Jan 27, 2026, the appellant remained absent before the commission. The respondent stated that the information and reply, after removal of deficiencies pointed out by the appellant, were already provided to him. The commission also noted that the appellant demanded online hearings. It found that the appellant filed long handwritten RTI applications that were not clear. To avoid wastage of the commission's time and resources, the Bench directed the appellant to appear personally before it.
On the last date of hearing also, the appellant remained absent and again sent a letter requesting an online hearing. After hearing the respondent and going through the case file, the commission said it ascertained that appropriate reply and information were provided to the appellant by the respondents. However, it observed that the appellant was "never satisfied" with the information provided by public authorities.
The commission said his behaviour towards public authorities was not "conducive" to the working of the commission. "In fact, he is using RTI applications as a tool to create terror amongst the public authorities and to exploit them with some ulterior motives," it observed. The commission further observed that the appellant was habitual of filing RTI applications without realising the "practical difficulties" faced by public authorities. It said that although it was not incumbent upon public authorities to provide voluminous information demanded by him, they were still cooperating with the appellant and providing information at the cost of other important and time-bound cases in their hands.
The commission also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which observed that 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time collecting and furnishing information to applicants under the RTI Act. The apex court further observed that the Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising information furnishing at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
The respondent requested withdrawal of the show-cause notice issued to the respondent PIO. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the commission dropped the show-cause notice. The commission held that the appeal was devoid of merit and closed and disposed of the case.

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Pleas Challenging DPDP Act’s Impact on RTI Act

Moneylife: New Delhi: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government on a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, particularly amendments affecting the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A bench comprising chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed that the matter required consideration and sought the Centre’s response.
Among the petitions before the court is one filed by Newslaundry challenging Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which deals with exemption from disclosure of personal information under the transparency law.
The challenge assumes significance because Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act substantially altered the language of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Before the amendment, the RTI provision exempted disclosure only where personal information had no relationship to public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It also contained a ‘larger public interest’ override allowing disclosure if public interest justified it. In addition, information that could not be denied to Parliament or a state legislature could not be denied to citizens.
After the amendment introduced through the DPDP Act, the clause was reduced to a much broader exemption covering information ‘which relates to personal information’.
Petitioners have argued that the change effectively creates a blanket exemption that can be used by public authorities to deny access to records merely by classifying them as personal information.
The petitions contend that the amendment removes three crucial safeguards embedded in the earlier RTI framework the public activity test, the unwarranted invasion of privacy test and the larger public interest override.
They have argued that the amended provision violates citizens’ right to information and the right to know under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The challenge also relies on the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in central public information officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal, where the court held that personal information could still be disclosed under the RTI Act if it had a reasonable nexus with public activity and larger public interest.
The petitioners have further challenged multiple provisions of the DPDP Act and Rules, including Sections 17, 18, 33 and 36 of the law.
Section 17(1)(c), which permits processing of data in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences, and Section 17(2), which exempts government agencies from the law on grounds including sovereignty, security of the state and public order, have been criticised for allegedly enabling excessive state surveillance without adequate safeguards.
The petitions also question Rule 23(2) of the DPDP Rules, 2025, which prevents intermediaries or data fiduciaries from informing users if their information has been shared with the Union government in matters linked to national security or sovereignty concerns.
Another challenge concerns the composition of the proposed data protection board of India under Section 18 of the Act. Petitioners have alleged ‘executive dominance’ in the appointment mechanism under Rules 17(1) and 17(2), arguing that it undermines institutional independence and violates the principle of separation of powers.
Section 33(1), dealing with penalties for ‘significant’ data breaches, has also been challenged on grounds of vagueness, with petitioners arguing that the law provides no statutory guidance on what constitutes a significant breach.
The DPDP Rules, 2025, notified by the Union government in November last year, operationalised key portions of India’s data protection framework following the enactment of the DPDP Act in August 2023. The legislation was introduced after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
However, transparency activists, journalists and former information commissioners have argued that the RTI amendments embedded within the DPDP framework fundamentally weaken public accountability mechanisms.
Former central information commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had described the RTI amendment as a change that ‘destroyed transparency’, arguing that the removal of the public interest override would make it easier for authorities to deny information related to public servants’ conduct, assets, welfare schemes and expenditure of public funds. (Read: How the Data Law Killed RTI: Exempting ‘Journalistic Purpose’ Threatens Freedom of Expression)
The case could become one of the most consequential constitutional challenges involving the balance between privacy rights and transparency obligations since the enactment of the RTI Act in 2005.

Internal Disciplinary File Notings Of Public Service Commission Cannot Be Mechanically Disclosed Under RTI Act: Kerala High Court : By - Muhib Makhdoomi

Verdictum: Kerala: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.
The Court held that internal disciplinary records and note files forming part of departmental decision-making constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Kerala High Court has held that internal file notings, deliberative materials and inter-departmental opinions forming part of disciplinary proceedings are not automatically disclosable under the Right to Information Act, 2005, merely because the information is sought by the employee concerned.
The Court observed that disclosure of such records remains subject to the exemptions contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and requires a balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission directing disclosure of internal note files relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against a former employee of the Commission.
A Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed: “The information sought pertains to internal disciplinary records constituting personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, and would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Further, no larger or overriding public interest has either been pleaded or established by the 2nd respondent so as to justify disclosure of the said information. Ext.P5, however, proceeds on the assumption that the entire note file is mechanically disclosable without undertaking any balancing exercise between transparency, privacy, confidentiality and institutional integrity. Such an approach is legally unsustainable”.
The Bench further added: “Even assuming the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that file notings fall within the definition of ‘information' under the RTI Act is correct, the disclosure of such information would nevertheless remain subject to the exemptions and procedural safeguards contemplated under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act”.
Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan appeared for the petitioners. Standing Counsel M. Ajay appeared for the Kerala State Information Commission.
Background
The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Kerala Public Service Commission against a Deputy Secretary, alleging irregularities in handling cash transactions and a shortage in the cash balance. Following the enquiry, punishment of barring increment and recovery of the loss amount with interest was imposed upon the employee.
Several years later, the employee sought copies of orders and file notings relating to the disciplinary proceedings and review petitions through an RTI application. The Public Information Officer rejected the request, holding that the information sought could not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The appellate authority affirmed the rejection.
The employee thereafter approached the Kerala State Information Commission, which directed the PSC to furnish all documents sought and further initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against the Public Information Officer. The Information Commission held that the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) were inapplicable since the information related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself.
Aggrieved thereby, the PSC approached the High Court challenging the legality of the order passed by the Information Commission.
Court’s Observation
The High Court extensively examined the scheme of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and reiterated that the provision must be interpreted purposively by balancing transparency with competing public interests such as privacy, confidentiality and efficient administration. The Court observed that the exemption provision is not merely a restriction on the right to information but part of the statutory mechanism intended to preserve institutional functioning and sensitive information.
The Court held that the expression “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) includes not merely personal records but also professional and service-related records, including disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment-related materials.
Referring to Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), the Court observed: “Memos, show-cause notices, censure orders and service-related materials constitute personal information, disclosure of which ordinarily bears no nexus to public activity and would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy unless justified by demonstrable larger public interest.”
The Court also relied upon Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and reiterated that the RTI Act does not contemplate indiscriminate disclosure of every category of information held by a public authority. The Court observed that internal deliberative materials forming part of departmental decision-making stand on a fundamentally different footing from final orders communicated in discharge of statutory duties.
Examining the nature of file notings, the Court observed that although file notings may in appropriate cases fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, disclosure of such information nevertheless remains subject to the exemptions under Sections 8 and 11 of the Act.
The Court also referred to the “doctrine of candour” recognised by the Constitution Bench in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal and observed:
“The doctrine of candour recognises the need for protecting a certain class of documents as they concern decision-making at the highest level of government, and only complete freedom from public gaze will enable freedom of expression and candour amongst government functionaries.”
The Bench further observed that internal note files and deliberative correspondence are treated distinctly from final decisions communicated to affected parties under the Manual of Office Procedure. The Court referred to provisions of the Manual stating that while the purport of final orders may be communicated, “the full text of the order should never be communicated, much less the whole correspondence embodied in the proceedings.”
The Court rejected the reasoning adopted by the Information Commission that the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) permitted disclosure because such information could not be denied to Parliament or the Legislature. After analysing several decisions, including Canara Bank v. Central Information Commission (2007), the Court held that the proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies the substantive exemption protecting personal information.
The Court observed: “It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision to which it is a proviso, unless such an intention is manifest.”
The High Court also noticed the amendments introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, observing that the legislative trend unmistakably indicates a movement towards greater protection of personal and service-related information.
On the issue of proceedings under Section 20(1), the Court held that penal consequences can arise only upon a clear finding of malafide denial or deliberate obstruction. Since the stand adopted by the PSC was based on a plausible and legally sustainable interpretation of Section 8(1)(j), initiation of proceedings under Section 20(1) was held to be unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that the direction issued by the Kerala State Information Commission directing indiscriminate disclosure of internal disciplinary file notings and initiating proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was contrary to the statutory framework governing protection of personal information and confidentiality.
The Court concluded that the information sought related to internal disciplinary records constituting personal information, disclosure of which had no nexus to public activity or overriding public interest and would result in unwarranted invasion of privacy. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Kerala State Information Commission and allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: State Public Information Officer & Ors. v. Kerala State Information Commission & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:34827)
Appearances
Petitioners: Standing Counsel P.C. Sasidharan and Advocate Millu Dandapani.
Respondents: Advocates Aype Joseph and L.T. Leju Kumar; Standing Counsel M. Ajay.
(Click here to read/download Judgment)

Passport clearance despite criminal case: Punjab information panel seeks update on action against cops : By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.
The matter had surfaced in 2023 during the hearing of an RTI appeal filed by Ferozepur resident Geetika against the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.

The Ludhiana commissioner of police constituted a three-member SIT on December 16, 2025, comprising the DCP Headquarters, ADCP Headquarters and an ACP-rank officer.

Nearly seven months after directing an inquiry into the issuance of Police Clearance Certificate to two passport applicants in 2021 despite a domestic violence case against them, the Punjab State Information Commission has sought a fresh status report from Punjab Police on departmental proceedings initiated against the three cops found guilty of lapses in the verification process.
A Police Clearance Certificate (PCC), provided after police verification, serves as an official confirmation of an applicant’s clear criminal record.
The matter had surfaced in 2023 during the hearing of an RTI appeal filed by Ferozepur resident Geetika against the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.
The appellant had sought information regarding the issuance of a PCC to Sahil Malhotra and Mamta Rani, who allegedly travelled to Canada on a study visa in 2021 despite facing a criminal case under Sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code at the time.
Taking serious note of the allegations, the commission, through orders issued on August 13 and October 29, 2025, had directed Punjab Police to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter.
Following the commission’s directions, the office of the Punjab director general of police (DGP) recommended the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Subsequently, the Ludhiana commissioner of police constituted a three-member SIT on December 16, 2025, comprising the DCP Headquarters, ADCP Headquarters and an ACP-rank officer.
According to records placed before the commission thereon, the SIT found three police personnel ASI Davinder Singh, ASI Harpreet Singh and ASI Tarsem Singh guilty of lapses in the passport verification process.
Based on the SIT findings, the commissioner of police on April 8, 2026, ordered a departmental inquiry against the three officials under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. The inquiry was assigned to Dev Singh, ADCP Zone-3, Ludhiana.
But with no status update for the past seven months, the commission has now directed Punjab Police to submit the latest report on the departmental proceedings initiated against the cops.
Observing that transparency and accountability are among the core objectives of the RTI Act, the commission stressed that public authorities must ensure strict adherence to legal procedures and initiate appropriate action wherever negligence or misconduct is detected.
Case triggered tightened passport verification process
This very case had prompted Punjab Police to tighten passport verification procedures across the state by issuing a fresh Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) aimed at ensuring greater transparency and scrutiny in the issuance of PCCs.
Under the SOP issued on May 16, 2025, passport verification officers were instructed to conduct physical verification of applicants at their residences in the presence of at least two permanent local witnesses. Officials have also been directed to click photographs of both applicants and witnesses during verification and obtain their digital signatures.
The SOP further mandates verification of identity, address and date-of-birth documents and makes scrutiny of criminal antecedents compulsory through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems and the Interoperable Criminal Justice System.
Additionally, station house officers have been directed to submit reports on passport verification forms within 24 hours of receiving verification inputs from the officials concerned.

CIABOC denies RTI request for general info

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has refused to release information sought by The Daily Morning under a Right to Information (RTI) request on complaints, investigations, court cases, and convictions linked to corruption-related matters handled by the Commission between 2015 and 2026.
In a response dated 21 April, the CIABOC’s Additional Director and Designated Officer under the RTI Act, M R Y K Udawela said that the requested information “cannot be disclosed”. “The refusal is made in terms of Section 62(1) of the Anti Corruption Act, No. 09 of 2023, which restricts the release of certain categories of information. Accordingly, this public authority is not legally bound to provide the requested information,” the response stated.
Section 62(1) of the relevant Act states: “The Commission, the Director-General or any other officer or employee of the Commission or any person whose services are retained under Section 27 shall not be compelled to reveal the source of any information received under the provisions of this Act.”
The letter also advised The Daily Morning to refer to the official CIABOC website for annual progress reports and other publicly available information.
The RTI request had sought information on: the number of complaints received by the CIABOC from 1 January 2015 to 20 March 2026, the number of complaints investigated during that period, the number of investigations that resulted in court cases being filed, the number of cases concluded in court, the number of cases withdrawn by the Commission, and the number of cases that resulted in convictions.
The Daily Morning’s Deputy News Editor Buddhika Samaraweera who filed the information request, is in the process of appealing the denial to the RTI Commission.

TGSRTC hired 1,675 outsourced drivers since 2014, No direct recruitment: RTI

Hyderabad Mail: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act that it has engaged 1,675 drivers exclusively through outsourcing since the state’s formation on June 2, 2014. TGSRTC did not recruit a single driver directly during this twelve-year period. However, the corporation denied access to contracts with manpower agencies, citing a transparency law provision.
Providing more details, TGSRTC shared this information with Hyderabad-based RTI activist Kareem Ansari. In response to a query on year-wise recruitment, the corporation stated it made no direct recruitments during this period. Instead, it hired all 1,675 drivers through external contractors.
Turning to the current workforce, as of April 2026, the Corporation employs 12,623 regular drivers, 6 casual drivers, 24 contract drivers, and 1,675 outsourced drivers. Outsourced drivers form about 11.7% of the total driver pool. They represent all new driving personnel recruited since 2014.
Expanding on this, the RTI response listed 53 private entities that have supplied or managed drivers for the state-owned bus corporation. The list includes large facility management firms and individual contractors.
Regionally, the data shows Medak has the highest number of outsourced drivers (260), followed by Khammam (241), Nizamabad (190), and Nalgonda (18). Hyderabad and Sangareddy each have 168 outsourced drivers.
However, while providing most of the numerical data, TGSRTC refused to share copies of contracts with these 53 agencies. The corporation rejected the query under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which protects commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property that could harm a third party’s competitive position.
Regarding financial details, the Corporation said the data on total payments to these agencies is not readily available and would require compilation. Citing a Supreme Court judgment in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the PIO argued that the RTI Act does not require a public authority to collect or collate information it doesn’t already have.
When asked if the Telangana government approved the outsourcing of drivers, TGSRTC replied, “No.” RTI activists have expressed concern about relying on outsourced labour for core operations like driving, especially given the denial of access to contracts.

Temples, churches & mosques fall within RTI ambit: AP info panel chief

The Times of India: Vijayawada: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) has ruled that all religious institutions functioning under govt supervision, statutory regulation, or receiving state funding and public donations fall within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission clarified that temples, mosques, churches, waqf institutions, and other religious bodies administered or supervised by the govt cannot deny information sought under the law.

State chief information commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao made the observations while hearing a petition concerning disclosure of information by the authorities of Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi temple in Visakhapatnam.
In a detailed 25-page order, the commission held that institutions operating under statutory control or receiving administrative oversight from the state qualify as "public authorities" under the RTI Act. Rejecting the temple authorities' contention that they were exempt from disclosure obligations, Srinivasa Rao observed that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in institutions substantially controlled, regulated, or financed by the govt.
The ruling came while disposing of a second appeal filed by K S N Patnaik after temple authorities refused to provide information relating to temple festivals, citing an earlier high court judgment.
The commission noted that temples governed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 function under extensive govt supervision through executive officers, trust boards, and statutory authorities appointed under the law. Their administration, finances, audits, and properties are also subject to state regulation.
The order further observed that offerings and donations made by devotees assume the character of public funds once they are administered within a statutory framework. "Transparency becomes essential when institutions receive public donations, govt grants, or financial assistance," Srinivasa Rao stated.
Extending the same reasoning to waqf institutions, mosques, and churches, the commission observed that such bodies often receive public contributions, foreign donations, and various forms of state support while functioning under regulatory mechanisms established by law.
However, the APIC clarified that matters relating to personal faith, religious rituals, ceremonies, and individual beliefs remain private and do not come under the RTI Act.
The commission directed the public information officer (PIO) of Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi temple to furnish the requested information within 15 days.
The order also noted that the Supreme Court and several high courts have repeatedly interpreted the scope of "public authority" broadly in cases involving institutions subject to direct or indirect govt control. Merely being a religious institution, the commission said, does not place an organisation outside the RTI framework.