Supreme Court Issues Notice in Petition Challenging DPDP Act, 2023

BW Legal World: New Delhi: Friday, 20 March 2026.
The petition argues that the DPDP framework does not provide adequate exemptions for journalistic activity, potentially undermining investigative reporting and press freedom. Because journalists collect and process personal data as part of their work, the law may classify them as “data fiduciaries,” requiring them to obtain consent from individuals before processing information.

The  Supreme Court of India issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation challenging key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, raising significant constitutional concerns relating to privacy, surveillance, press freedom, and the independence of India’s data protection regulator. The petition has been filed by senior journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of provisions of the DPDP framework that allegedly violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The matter came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on March 12th, 2026, where the Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India issued notice to the Respondents, calling for their response to the constitutional challenge.
During the hearing, the Court acknowledged that the petition raises issues concerning the implications of the data protection regime on constitutional rights and agreed to examine the matter further.
Background of the Petition
The petition challenges specific provisions of the DPDP Act and the DPDP Rules on the ground that, rather than strengthening privacy protections following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the current framework weakens several safeguards and creates structural risks to civil liberties.
The petition seeks the striking down or reading down of provisions including Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, along with certain rules and schedules under the DPDP Rules, 2025.
According to the petition, these provisions:

1. Permit excessive executive control over data governance;
2. Create surveillance risks without adequate safeguards;
3. Eliminate civil remedies available to individuals affected by data breaches; and
4. Undermine journalistic freedom and the right to information.
5. Provide extensive Government control over the Data Protection Board’s appointments.

Courtroom Submissions During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate submitted that several provisions of the DPDP Act depart from the constitutional framework established by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy privacy judgment. Ms Jaising submitted that the legislation, instead of protecting citizens from misuse of personal data, creates provisions that enable broad state access to personal information without adequate safeguards.
The Bench observed that the issues raised required consideration and accordingly issued notice to the Union Government.
Key Constitutional Concerns Raised in the Petition
The petition organizes its challenge around five core constitutional concerns.
1. Lack of Journalistic Exemptions
The petition argues that the DPDP framework does not provide adequate exemptions for journalistic activity, potentially undermining investigative reporting and press freedom. Because journalists collect and process personal data as part of their work, the law may classify them as “data fiduciaries,” requiring them to obtain consent from individuals before processing information. The petition also challenges the amendment to RTI Act which will allow the govt to deny information requests relating to personal information, even if sought in public interest and was previously permissible under the RTI act
According to the petition, such requirements would make it impossible to produce and publish investigative reports involving individuals who may refuse consent. The petition highlights that earlier legislative drafts and international data protection frameworks include specific exemptions for journalistic work.
2. Overbroad Powers for the State
The petition challenges provisions that allow the State to process personal data for certain governmental functions and empower the Central Government to exempt its own agencies from compliance with the law.
The petition argues that these provisions effectively allow the State to process personal data “in a legal vacuum”, without being bound by fundamental data protection principles such as consent, purpose limitation, or storage limitation.
3. Absence of Compensation for Data Breach Victims
The petition also challenges the repeal of Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which previously provided individuals the right to seek compensation for wrongful loss caused by negligent handling of personal data.
The DPDP Act replaces this framework with a penalty regime where fines are paid to the government rather than to affected individuals. The petition argues that this creates a“compensation vacuum”, leaving individuals without a meaningful remedy even when their personal data is misused or leaked.
4. Lack of Independence of the Data Protection Board
The petition further raises concerns regarding the structure of the Data Protection Board of India, the adjudicatory body established under the DPDP Act. According to the petition, the Central Government retains extensive control over the Board’s appointments, staffing, and service conditions, despite the fact that government entities themselves may appear before the Board in proceedings.
The petition argues that this arrangement raises serious concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the regulator.
5. Surveillance Powers Without Safeguards
The petition also challenges provisions that allow the government to require intermediaries and data fiduciaries to furnish information. According to the petition, these provisions create a parallel surveillance mechanism without procedural safeguards comparable to those required under existing interception laws.
The petition argues that these provisions violate the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India and fail the proportionality test articulated in Puttaswamy.
About the Petitioners

1. Geeta Seshu is a senior journalist and co-founder of the Free Speech Collective.
2. Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) is a digital rights organisation engaged in strategic litigation, policy advocacy, and research on technology law and civil liberties

CIC flags Aadhaar update delays, asks UIDAI to fix timelines

The Economic Times: New Delhi: Friday, 20 March 2026.
The Central Information Commission has highlighted delays in updating Aadhaar details. It has asked the Unique Identification Authority of India to set clear timelines for processing requests. The commission also wants UIDAI to improve its system for addressing public grievances. This comes after a woman faced long delays in correcting her date of birth on her Aadhaar card.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has flagged delays in updating Aadhaar details and asked the Unique Identification Authority of India to fix timelines and strengthen its grievance redressal system.
The observations came while disposing of an appeal filed by a woman who had sought correction of date of birth in her Aadhaar card, alleging that her request was not processed in time.
During the hearing, the appellant said that despite submitting the required documents, her request remained pending for a long time, forcing her to approach the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition in the matter.
The CIC noted that applicants frequently approach it with grievances related to correction of date of birth, gender, spelling errors in names and other demographic details, often due to delays and lack of clarity in procedures.
Observing the trend, the Commission said such matters "primarily relate to service delivery and grievance redressal and ideally should be resolved within the administrative framework of the concerned authority without requiring citizens to resort to filing RTI applications".
Stressing the need for systemic improvements, the CIC advised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to strengthen its mechanism for updating demographic details and ensure a transparent and user-friendly process.
It also asked the authority to lay down "clear timelines for disposal of such requests" and ensure that applications are processed in a "time-bound manner in accordance with applicable rules and regulations".
The Commission further stressed the need to improve grievance handling so that citizens receive timely responses "without the need to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act".
It also called for enhancing public awareness regarding the procedures and documentation required for updating Aadhaar details.
During the hearing, UIDAI informed the Commission that the appellant's request had since been processed and her date of birth corrected, adding that the RTI application was more in the nature of a grievance rather than a request for information.
Taking note of the submissions, the CIC said the reply furnished by the public authority was appropriate and disposed of the appeal, while underlining that "continued improvement in its operational mechanisms will help strengthen public confidence and trust" in the Aadhaar system.

APIC imposes penalty on Namsai PIO for RTI violation

Echo Of Arunachal: Itanagar: Friday, 20 March 2026.

The Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission (APIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on Kago Doni, DLRSO, Government of Arunachal Pradesh-cum-Public Information Officer (PIO), Namsai district, for violation of provisions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
According to an order (No. APIC-600/2025) dated March 18, 2026, the penalty was imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for gross violation of the provisions of the Act.
The Commission directed the PIO to deposit the penalty amount in favour of the Registrar, APIC, Itanagar, through Treasury Challan under the Head of Account “0070-Other Administrative Charge” within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
It further warned that failure to comply with the directive would lead to recommendations for disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act by the competent authority.

HC directs former Mysore Maharaja’s granddaughter to use RTI to get palace board’s financial details : Written by- Mustafa Plumber

Indian Express: Mysore: Thursday, 19 March 2026.
Deepa Malini Devi has alleged that there is a lack of financial transparency in the functioning of the Mysore Palace Board.

The Karnataka High Court directed Deepa Malini Devi to seek
Mysore Palace Board financial records through an RTI application.
(File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court has directed Deepa Malini Devi, the granddaughter of the late Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar the last ruling Maharaja of Mysore to file an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get financial and other information about the Mysore Palace Board, which manages the heritage monument.
In her petition, Devi claimed that after the enactment of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, the Mysore Palace is being managed as a public trust and heritage monument. However, the management was opaque, and there was no financial transparency in the functioning of the Mysore Palace Board, she alleged.
Devi had filed a petition in the high court, seeking various documents, including the service record of respondent No.2, T S Subramanya, who is working as a deputy director for the Mysore Palace Board. She also sought certified copies of all major contracts, procurements or agreements entered into by the Board during the term of the present deputy director and complete financial records and accounts regarding the revenue and expenditure of the trust.
In a February 20 order, a single-judge bench of the high court disposed of Devi’s petition, granting her the liberty to file an RTI application. Challenging the order of the single judge, she filed an appeal.
In the appeal, the counsel for the appellant, Aravind Reddy H, failed to point to any statute other than the RTI Act under which the appellant could be provided the copies of the documents sought.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha, in its order dated March 4, said, “The learned single judge has rightly disposed of the petition by reserving the petitioner, the right to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Needless to state that if such an application is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law.”

(WA 702/2026  SMT DEEPA MALINI DEVI V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA)

Karnataka Information Commission brings Apex Bank under RTI Act

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Thursday, 19 March 2026.
As the State Co-op Apex Bank has now now declared as public authority, the information relating to its functioning including financial decisions, will now be subject to public scrutiny under RTI

In a significant order that goes a long way in ensuring transparency in the cooperative banking sector, the Karnataka Information Commission has ruled that the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank qualifies as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, directing it to comply with provisions of this transparency law.
The ruling came while hearing a second appeal filed by Hanumantha Vasanth Shinde, who had sought copies of documents submitted by Nirani Sugars Ltd. while availing loans from the Apex Bank between March 2022 and June 2024. The bank had declined the request, stating that it was a cooperative society and hence did not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
The bank argued that it was neither owned nor substantially financed by the State government and therefore did not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
However, State Information Commissioner Rajashekara S., who heard the case, rejected the argument, observing that the institution functions under deep and pervasive state control.
In his order, the commissioner examined the historical evolution of the bank, statutory provisions governing cooperative institutions, and the extent of administrative and financial oversight exercised by the State.
The order pointed out that the bank traces its origins to the cooperative movement in the erstwhile Mysore State and was founded by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in his official capacity. Over the decades, the State government has continued to influence its functioning through policy directions and institutional oversight, it noted.
The commission observed that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies serves as an ex officio director on the bank’s board and retains statutory powers to inspect records, conduct inquiries, and order audits under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Further, audit reports of apex cooperative institutions are required to be submitted to the state government and placed before the legislature. The bank is also regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and supervised by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development for rural credit operations, the order pointed out.
The commission relied on several judicial precedents to determine whether the bank could be treated as an instrumentality of the state. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Hasia v/s International Airport Authority case, which laid down tests for identifying State-controlled bodies.
It referred to the Karnataka High Court ruling in B.T. Krishnegowda v/s Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank, which held that the Apex Bank is an instrumentality of the state and therefore subject to writ jurisdiction.
Directions
The commission directed the Apex Bank to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) across its offices and comply with the proactive disclosure requirements under Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(B) of the RTI Act.
It instructed the Principal Secretary of the Cooperation Department and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to ensure that the bank implements the RTI framework without delay.
Wider implications
The order could have broader implications for cooperative financial institutions in Karnataka as many of which have resisted RTI requests citing their cooperative status.
With the Apex Bank now being declared a public authority, information relating to its functioning including governance practices and financial decisions may be subject to public scrutiny under the RTI Act. This is expected to have wider implications as this institution that wields significant political influence, especially at grass-roots, is now being opened to public scrutiny.

पत्नी भरण-पोषण की कार्यवाही के लिए RTI Act के तहत पति का IT रिटर्न नहीं मांग सकती, यह 'निजी जानकारी' के तहत छूट प्राप्त है: कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: Karnataka: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.

कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि कोई भी जीवनसाथी, दूसरे जीवनसाथी का इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न और वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड, सूचना का अधिकार (RTI) एक्ट, 2005 के तहत आवेदन करके प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता; क्योंकि ऐसी जानकारी RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) के तहत 'निजी जानकारी' मानी जाती है, जिसे सार्वजनिक करने से छूट प्राप्त है।
बेंगलुरु में बैठी पीठ ने अदालत के आदेश में यह टिप्पणी करते हुए गिरीश रामचंद्र देशपांडे बनाम CIC, 2012 AIR SCW 5865 मामले का हवाला दिया,
"...किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा अपने इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न में दी गई जानकारी निजी जानकारी होती है, जिसे RTI Act की धारा 8(1) के खंड (j) के तहत सार्वजनिक करने से छूट प्राप्त है, जब तक कि कोई बड़ा जनहित साबित न हो जाए... 'बड़ा जनहित' शब्द का अर्थ ऐसा हित है, जो विवाद में शामिल पक्षों से परे हो और जिसका संबंध आम जनता या उसके किसी बड़े हिस्से से हो। भरण-पोषण से जुड़ा कोई व्यक्तिगत विवाद... मुख्य रूप से जीवनसाथियों के बीच का एक निजी मामला ही रहता है।"
हालांकि, जस्टिस सूरज गोविंदराज ने आगे स्पष्ट किया कि जिन अदालतों में भरण-पोषण की कार्यवाही चल रही है, वे संबंधित पक्षों की वित्तीय क्षमता का निष्पक्ष आकलन करने के लिए इनकम टैक्स विभाग से संबंधित दस्तावेज तलब कर सकती हैं।
हालांकि अदालत ने यह माना कि RTI आवेदन के माध्यम से केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO) से आय का विवरण प्राप्त नहीं किया जा सकता, क्योंकि यह 'बड़े जनहित' की कसौटी पर खरा नहीं उतरता। फिर भी भरण-पोषण के दावों के संबंध में जीवनसाथी उन दस्तावेजों को अदालत में पेश करवाने के लिए अदालतों का दरवाजा खटखटा सकता है।
जज ने आदेश के साथ संलग्न परिशिष्ट में यह बात कही,
"...अदालत [भरण-पोषण मामलों की अदालतें] केवल मौखिक बयानों या आय के संबंध में बिना पुष्टि वाले दावों के आधार पर भरण-पोषण की राशि तय नहीं करेंगी। यदि किसी भी पक्ष की आय को लेकर विवाद है, तो अदालत स्वतः संज्ञान लेते हुए अपनी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करके दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य तलब कर सकती है, जिसमें इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न और संबंधित वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड शामिल हैं..."
उपरोक्त बातों को ध्यान में रखते हुए अदालत ने याचिका आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया और पत्नी को यह स्वतंत्रता दी कि वह भरण-पोषण के मामले की सुनवाई कर रही अदालत में जाकर अपने पति के वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड का आकलन करने का अनुरोध कर सकती है। आयकर विभाग को IT Act, 1961 की धारा 138 के तहत भरण-पोषण न्यायालय के समक्ष वित्तीय दस्तावेज़ प्रस्तुत करने की आवश्यकता होने की संभावना है।
हाईकोर्ट ने पति या पत्नी में से किसी के भी वित्तीय अभिलेखों के संबंध में 'प्रस्तुतीकरण आदेश' (Production Orders) के लिए आवेदन करने हेतु विस्तृत दिशानिर्देश भी जारी किए।
Case Title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another

No govt job through employment offices in five years in Rajasthan; 22 lakh candidates registered, says RTI

The Hindu: Jaipur: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State; of these, over 13.08 lakh were male, 9.12 lakh female, and 989 fell under the 'other' category.

More than 22 lakh unemployed youth are currently registered with employment offices across Rajasthan, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
It was further revealed that no candidate was recruited in the government sector through the employment offices in the past five years.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State. Of these, over 13.08 lakh were male, 9.12 lakh female, and 989 fell under the 'other' category.
Among districts, Jaipur recorded the highest number of registered unemployed people at 2.51 lakh, followed by Alwar (1.53 lakh), Nagaur (1.34 lakh), Jhunjhunu (1.22 lakh) and Jodhpur (86,320). In contrast, Jaisalmer (12,031) and Pratapgarh (14,047) reported the lowest number of registered candidates.
The category-wise data indicates that candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) form the largest share among registered job seekers, followed by general, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and other categories.
Placements in the private and public sector
The data further revealed the limited placements in the private sector during the past five years. According to the information provided, 86 candidates were placed in 2021, 825 in 2022, three in 2023, 23 in 2024 and 71 in 2025 through employment office initiatives, including job fairs and coordination with private companies.
"The private sector has seen high growth in the last two decades. Investment in crores, but the jobs provided by the directorate are miniscule. Permanent and temporary jobs in the government sector through the directorate seem to have completely stopped. There is a need to activate employment offices and refer candidates," Right to Information (RTI) applicant Chandra Shekhar Gaur said.
The RTI application had also sought details of employment generated through investor summits held in the State over the past two years. However, the department clarified that such information is not related to it.
It also replied to a query saying that the employment offices did not provide jobs in government sector in the past five years.
A senior officer of the Directorate of Employment said the department publishes 'Rojgar Sandesh' fortnightly to keep job seekers aware of various government vacancies.
He said various activities like fairs are also organised from time to time.
The official website of the Department of Skills, Employment and Entrepreneurship in Rajasthan notes that the Department of Employment has been catering to the needs of the job seekers through various activities and schemes. For better coordination and speedily execution of programmes, 'Department of Skills, Development and Entrepreneurship' was established in May 2015.
Providing vocational guidance about various courses and training facilities to job seekers, submission of job seekers' list to employers, registration of unemployed youth, organising Rozgar Melas, and assisting job seekers of weaker sections of the society under special schemes are listed as some of the department's functions.

RTI Act: Right to information, wrong in practice

Business Standard: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.
Bangladesh’s RTI framework ranks highly in global legal ratings, but the prolonged vacancy in the Information Commission has left the law without its central enforcement mechanism

Bangladesh enacted the Right to Information Act in 2009, granting citizens the legal right to request information from public authorities. The law also created the Information Commission, an independent body responsible for hearing appeals when government agencies fail to respond to those requests.
Today, that enforcement mechanism is largely inactive. The posts of Chief Information Commissioner and two commissioners have remained vacant for more than 18 months, leaving the institution without leadership.
In the absence of a functioning commission, citizens who are denied information have limited avenues to challenge those decisions. A recent amendment to the law introduced several procedural changes, but the institutional gap remains.
The tenure of the last commissioners expired, and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named.
The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal.
At a press conference earlier this month, Transparency International Bangladesh Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman described the situation as "embarrassing".
He also said, "During the tenure of the interim government, a number of important decisions affecting key sectors of the state were taken without due regard for transparency. In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that the government allowed the Information Commission to remain unconstituted for a year and a half. However, the continued failure to form the Information Commission, despite the legal obligation to do so, is deeply embarrassing."
He added, "During the Awami League's 16 years in power, the country was governed through what many described as a system of entrenched corruption, and the Right to Information Commission was rendered ineffective, much like several other oversight bodies. At the same time, the governance process under the interim administration also suffered from a lack of transparency. Until the very last moment of its tenure, the formation of the Information Commission was deliberately delayed."
Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (Shujan), expressed frustration, saying, "Transitioning from our country's long-standing culture of secrecy to a culture of openness is a long and difficult process. In this regard, the interim government failed to set a positive example. Despite having a legal obligation to do so, it delayed the formation of the Information Commission for an extended period, setting an unprecedented record."
Reality on the ground
On paper, Bangladesh's Right to Information framework is not weak.
The Global RTI Rating, maintained by the Centre for Law and Democracy in Canada, gives Bangladesh a score of 107–109 out of 150, placing it 27th among 141 countries as of 2024. In terms of legal design, the law even scores higher than countries such as Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
But a law is only as effective as the institution that enforces it.
Moreover, data from the Right to Information portal shows how the system is currently functioning.
According to the dashboard, a total of 27,673 RTI applications have been submitted across Bangladesh. Yet only 121 applications have received responses so far.
Another 139 applications remain under process, while the overwhelming majority 24,487 requests have already exceeded the legal response deadline without resolution. In addition, 18 applications have been cancelled.
The numbers highlight a striking imbalance between requests filed and responses delivered. In effect, thousands of citizens have exercised their legal right to seek information, but only a tiny fraction have received replies within the system.
The portal also indicates that the platform has been viewed by 127,629 visitors, suggesting growing public interest in using the law despite the system's limited responsiveness.
What the 2026 RTI amendment introduced
The RTI Amendment Ordinance 2026, issued earlier this year by the interim government, marked the first significant revision of the law since its adoption in 2009.
The ordinance introduced several changes.
It broadened the definition of "information", strengthened provisions on proactive disclosure, and increased penalties for non-compliance. The daily fine for refusing to provide information was raised from Tk50 to Tk100, while the maximum penalty increased from Tk5,000 to Tk10,000.
Taken individually, these revisions appear reasonable. Yet they largely bypass the deeper institutional problems that have long limited the effectiveness of the law.
One of the most debated changes concerns the definition of information itself. The amendment expanded the scope to include digital materials, maps, microfilms and electronically generated records.
At the same time, it explicitly excluded official note sheets the internal documents where bureaucrats record discussions, recommendations and the reasoning behind administrative decisions. For transparency advocates, this exclusion removes precisely the records that allow citizens to understand how decisions are actually made inside the state.
Civil society groups had proposed much broader reforms.
In 2025, the Tottho Odhikar Forum submitted 37 recommendations to the government. Among them were proposals to include note sheets within the scope of the law, extend coverage to political parties and private organisations receiving public funds, introduce a mandatory deadline for filling vacancies in the Information Commission, and harmonise the RTI Act with conflicting legislation such as the Official Secrets Act.
None of these recommendations was incorporated into the amendment.
Even the revised penalty provisions may have limited practical impact. A maximum fine of Tk10,000 for denying a citizen's legal right to information is unlikely to act as a strong deterrent for public officials.
How South Asia compares
Bangladesh is not the only South Asian country struggling with the enforcement of transparency laws. But its current institutional vacuum is particularly severe.
India, which ranks ninth globally in the RTI Rating, operates a multi-tiered oversight structure consisting of a Central Information Commission and information commissions in each state. While the institutional framework remains active, the system faces significant delays.
As of mid-2024, more than 405,000 appeals and complaints were pending across 29 information commissions nationwide, reflecting mounting pressure on the transparency regime despite its continued operation.
Sri Lanka, ranked 4th globally with a score of 131/150, offers a more encouraging model. Its five-member RTI Commission, established under the Right to Information Act of 2016, has the power to conduct inquiries, summon witnesses under oath, and file cases in Magistrates' Courts against officials who provide false or incomplete information, with penalties of up to Rs50,000 or imprisonment. The commissioners are appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, insulating the process from executive discretion.
Nepal, ranked 23rd globally, was the first country in South Asia to recognise the right to information as a fundamental constitutional right. The National Information Commission continues to process appeals and oversee compliance with the law.
"The tenure of the last commissioners expired and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named. The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal."
According to the commission's latest annual report from November 2024, the body received 5,182 appeals during the five-year tenure of its commissioners and resolved about 95% of them. The figures show that the commission remains institutionally active in handling information disputes. Yet challenges persist. Reports from civil society indicate that citizens sometimes face harassment after filing information requests, while proactive disclosure by provincial and local governments remains uneven.
Afghanistan presents another notable case. According to the global RTI Rating, its Access to Information Law ranks first in the world with a score of 139 out of 150. Adopted in 2014 and later strengthened through amendments, the law grants broad rights to request information and establishes detailed provisions on scope, appeals and disclosure obligations.
In principle, any individual can request information from public institutions under this framework.
The RTI Rating, however, evaluates the strength of legislation rather than its implementation.
A new government, an unresolved vacancy and a test for Bangladesh
Bangladesh's challenge is not writing a good transparency law. That part was largely achieved in 2009. The real challenge is ensuring that the institution responsible for enforcing the law actually functions.
As long as the Information Commission remains vacant, the Right to Information Act will continue to operate without its central pillar. Citizens may still submit requests, but when those requests are ignored or denied, there is no authority to intervene.
In that sense, Bangladesh today faces a simple but crucial question: whether transparency will remain a principle written into law or become a practice backed by functioning institutions.
Until that gap is addressed, the country's right to information risks remaining exactly what critics have long warned a right that exists on paper but not in practice.
The vacancy at the Information Commission has now extended across two successive administrations.
The commissioners' terms expired in August 2024 during the final months of the Awami League government. The interim administration that followed the July 2024 political upheaval did not appoint replacements, leaving the statutory body inactive.
Following the parliamentary election held in February 2026, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed the new government after securing a large parliamentary majority. The election marked the party's return to power after nearly two decades in opposition, ending the interim administration that had overseen the transition following the protests that forced the previous government from office.
The new government has inherited a number of institutional gaps created during the period of political turbulence, including vacancies in several statutory bodies. The Information Commission is among the most significant because its operation is directly linked to the enforcement of the Right to Information Act.
Under the RTI Act, the commission is responsible for hearing appeals when citizens do not receive responses to information requests within the legally mandated timeframe. With the commission inactive, those appeals cannot be processed, effectively removing the final enforcement layer of the law.
The continuation of the vacancy in the commissioners' posts means that the Right to Information framework is currently operating without the institution designed to adjudicate disputes and enforce compliance.
In practical terms, the responsibility for restoring the commission now rests with the current administration, which holds the authority to appoint new commissioners.

Info panel at doorstep of citizens: Over 1,100 pending 2nd appeals disposed of in Nanded

Times of India: Aurangabad: Tuesday, 17 March 2026.
The State Information Commission(SIC)'s Chhatrapati Sambhajingar bench has started a special initiative called ‘info panel at doorstep of citizens' under which a total of 1,136 second appeals were disposed of in Nanded.

Led by state information commissioner, Prakash Indalkar, the SIC bench is holding hearings at various places to save time and energy of applicants.
"The special hearing programme for second appeals was organised for Nanded district from March 9 to March 13. A total of 1,136 second appeals, and other cases related to the RTI Act 2005 were disposed of during the programme," said an official release.
Hearing notices were issued by the SIC to all concerned parties and a cause list, which is an official schedule that lists the cases to be heard on a specific day, were made available on the official website.
"Many appellants along with public information officers and appellate officers from different public offices expressed their gratitude towards the SIC for making special efforts by holding district-level hearings," the SIC has said.
Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a second appeal is the final administrative remedy available to an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Filed under Section 19(3) of the Act, the second appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the First Appellate Authority decision was actually received by the appellant or within 90 days after expiry of 45 days of filing of first appeal in cases where no reply has been received.
As per official record, 14,469 second appeals are pending with the SIC main bench and seven different benches by Feb-end.

No government job through unemployment offices in five years in Rajasthan; 22 lakh candidates registered: RTI

The Hindu: Jaipur: Tuesday, 17 March 2026.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State

More than 22 lakh unemployed youth are currently registered with employment offices across Rajasthan, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
It was further revealed that no candidate was recruited in the government sector through the employment offices in the past five years.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State. Of these, over 13.08 lakh were male, 9.12 lakh female, and 989 fell under the 'other' category.
Among districts, Jaipur recorded the highest number of registered unemployed people at 2.51 lakh, followed by Alwar (1.53 lakh), Nagaur (1.34 lakh), Jhunjhunu (1.22 lakh) and Jodhpur (86,320). In contrast, Jaisalmer (12,031) and Pratapgarh (14,047) reported the lowest number of registered candidates.
The category-wise data indicates that candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) form the largest share among registered job seekers, followed by general, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and other categories.
The data further revealed the limited placements in the private sector during the past five years. According to the information provided, 86 candidates were placed in 2021, 825 in 2022, three in 2023, 23 in 2024 and 71 in 2025 through employment office initiatives, including job fairs and coordination with private companies.
"The private sector has seen high growth in the last two decades. Investment in crores, but the jobs provided by the directorate are minuscule. Permanent and temporary jobs in the government sector through the directorate seem to have completely stopped. There is a need to activate unemployment offices and refer candidates," Right to Information (RTI) applicant Chandra Shekhar Gaur said.
The RTI application had also sought details of employment generated through investor summits held in the State over the past two years. However, the department clarified that such information is not related to it.
It also replied to a query saying that the unemployment offices did not provide jobs in government sector in the past five years.
The official website of the Department of Skills, Employment and Entrepreneurship in Rajasthan notes that the Department of Employment has been catering to the needs of the job seekers through various activities and schemes.
For better coordination and speedily execution of programmes, the Department of Skills, Development and Entrepreneurship was established in May 2015. Providing vocational guidance about various courses and training facilities to job seekers, submission of job seekers' list to employers, registration of unemployed youth, organising Rozgar Melas, and assisting job seekers of weaker sections of the society under special schemes are listed as some of the department's functions.

RTI plea revives 22-yr-old plan to create lake in Kovilpatti

The Times of India: Chennai: Monday, 16 March 2026.

More than two decades after the Tamil Nadu govt first proposed creating an irrigation lake in Thuraiyur village near Kovilpatti, an RTI application has nudged authorities to revive the project. The commissionerate of land administration has now sought 11.88 crore from the state's water resources department to acquire land for the project.
Records presented before the Tamil Nadu state information commission show that the proposal dates back to a govt order issued in 2004 by the water resources department allocating 29.41 lakh for creating a lake, with 3.35 lakh released for land acquisition.
However, the project failed to progress for years after the initial steps. The RTI application by Kovilpatti resident Ponnusamy in 2022 sought information on the land acquisition and compensation to develop the irrigation lake in Thuraiyur village. The public information officer (PIO), who is the personal assistant to the Kovilpatti district revenue officer (DRO), did not respond to the application or to the first appeal filed by the applicant.
Following this, Ponnusamy approached the state information commission with a second appeal in Nov 2022.
During the first hearing in June 2025, the PIO informed the commission that the land acquisition process could not begin as revised land survey details were not received from the public works department (PWD). The commission then summoned the PWD's PIO for the next hearing.
At subsequent hearings held in July and later months, officials informed the commission that the Tuticorin district administration wrote to the commissioner of land administration in Chennai on Dec 9 seeking administrative sanction to acquire 23.46 hectares of private land in Thuraiyur and Sivanthipatti villages, along with 6.28 hectares of poramboke land, to create the irrigation lake.
Acting on directions from the commission, the sub-collector's office reported on Feb 27 that the commissionerate of land administration wrote to the water resources dept secretary on Feb 18 requesting allocation of 11.88 crore to initiate land acquisition.
The commission now directed the sub-collector to report on the steps taken by the water resources department secretary by June 6.

Missing records no ground to deny RTI info: Punjab State Information Commission

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 16 March 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission made it clear that public authorities cannot deny information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the ground that records are missing. Taking a serious view of such a plea by the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, the commission directed its managing director to look into the matter and ensure that appropriate action is taken regarding the missing records.

The direction was issued by a bench of State Information Commissioner Dr Bhupinder Batth while hearing an appeal filed by a Mohali resident seeking information from the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. The RTI request was pending since July 2023.
During the hearing, the respondent department informed the commission that the information sought by the appellant could not be located in its official records. The department stated that the information demanded was very old and sought additional time to trace it. The appellant was not present during the hearing, and the notice sent to him was returned as undelivered.
After hearing the respondent and examining the documents on record, the commission observed that the department did not provide the requested information on the ground that the records could not be traced. It noted that the respondent cannot evade its responsibility to provide information merely by stating that the records cannot be located. The commission said efforts must be made to trace the records and supply the information sought by the applicant.
The commission granted the respondent an opportunity either to furnish the required information to the appellant or to submit an affidavit detailing the steps taken to locate the missing records.
The commission also observed that the department did not implement Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates that every public authority must maintain its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner that facilitates access to information under the Act. It further noted that records that are appropriate for computerisation should be computerised within a reasonable time, subject to the availability of resources, and connected through a network across the country on different systems. Emphasising this provision, the commission said failure to maintain proper records cannot be used as a ground to deny information under the RTI Act.
In view of these observations, the commission directed that a copy of the order be sent to the managing director of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation to examine the issue, ensure necessary action regarding the missing records, and submit a compliance report before the next hearing. Both parties were directed to appear in person before the commission on the next date of hearing scheduled for July 9.

RTI obligations for local governments and government owned corporations : Published by- Joanne Jary & Cosmo Cater

Holding Redlich: Queensland: Monday, 16 March 2026.

The Information Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (Qld) (IPOLA Act) made substantial changes to both the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) (RTI Act) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (IP Act), seeing substantial law reforms happening over the course of 2025-26 relating to information in Queensland.
Key changes include a Mandatory Notification of Data Breach (MNDB) scheme for Queensland government agencies (delayed for local government until 1 July 2026), a single set of Queensland Privacy Principles (QPPs) and broader control requirements for agencies including a QPP Privacy Policy, Data Breach Policy and publication scheme change.
A significant development affecting local government lawyers in 2026 is the staggered commencement of obligations under the IPOLA Act, some of which do not take effect until 1 July 2026. The consequence is that local councils are now entering their compliance window for the most significant reform to Queensland's information law regime in over a decade.
Similarly, government owned corporations (GOCs), whilst generally being subject to the RTI Act, have a nuanced position worth exploring.
Who must comply?
The RTI Act applies to ‘agencies’, which include departments, local government, public authority, government owned corporation or subsidiary of a government owned corporation.
This deliberately broad definition catches entities that may not appreciate or have tested their RTI exposure, particularly GOC subsidiaries and local government bodies.
The fundamental threshold question for any entity uncertain about its status is whether it is established for a public purpose by or under an Act (section 16(1)(a)(i) – (ii) RTI Act). Most government boards in Queensland are established for a public purpose by or under an Act. This means that under the RTI Act, members of the public have a right to access documents that government boards have control or possession of.
Uncertainty about whether a body is an ‘agency’ is not a safe harbour, and entities that have historically operated as though they are outside the RTI regime may find themselves exposed if they have never tested that assumption.
Government owned corporations
The classification of GOCs under the RTI Act is one of the more nuanced areas of Queensland information law. The basic position is clear: a GOC or its subsidiary is an agency under the RTI Act. However, the position for some GOCs is materially qualified.
Schedule 2, Part 2 of the RTI Act lists functions of entities to which the RTI Act does not apply. Several GOCs are included. For these GOCs, the RTI Act only applies in relation to their community service obligations. A GOC listed in Schedule 2, Part 2 may not have any community service obligations. Any community service obligations a GOC performs must be included in the GOC's statement of corporate intent, which is prepared each financial year.
A GOC that is listed in Schedule 2, Part 2 is largely shielded from RTI access applications, but only in respect of its commercial functions. Where it has community service obligations, those remain subject to the Act.
The RTI Act also provides protection in relation to the disclosure of commercial-in-confidence information. This is important as GOCs that operate in competitive markets are entitled to resist disclosure of pricing strategies, contract terms and proprietary operational information on public interest grounds.
The Publication Scheme Obligation for GOCs
Beyond responding to individual access applications, GOCs have a proactive disclosure obligation administered through publication schemes. On their website, each GOC must develop and publish the details of the information it is making available to the public (section 21 RTI Act). As a guide, the level of disclosure in the publication scheme should be similar to the types of information that private sector public companies publish, for example, information which ASX-listed companies publish on their website.
Accountability now does not sit exclusively with the legal team. Boards and CEOs are responsible for compliance.
Local government
Local councils are unambiguously agencies for RTI purposes. Core obligations apply: making access decisions within statutory timeframes, maintaining a publication scheme, operating a disclosure log, and providing internal and external review rights.
Councils that have not appointed a dedicated RTI officer are at risk particularly given the volume of community and media-generated applications that flow through local government.
For local governments, the countdown is on. The MNDB scheme commenced on 1 July 2025 for all other agencies and will begin to apply to local government from 1 July 2026. Councils that have not already begun implementing an MNDB-compliant data breach response framework have less than three months to do so.
Queensland government agencies will be required to undertake an assessment of an eligible data breach within 30 days and notify affected individuals and the Information Commissioner. An eligible data breach arises where there is unauthorised access to or disclosure of personal information held by the agency. This 30-day assessment clock begins from the moment the council has reasonable grounds to believe an eligible data breach may have occurred, and not from confirmation of the breach.
Agencies should also be aware that federal privacy reforms introduced a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. For local councils, which routinely hold sensitive personal information, this tort creates a new litigation angle.
Consolidated access and amendment processes
A further IPOLA change affecting all agencies is the consolidation of access and amendment processes into a single regime under the RTI Act. Applications for access to documents of an agency and to  amend personal information are now made under the RTI Act. There continues to be no application fee for amendment applications or for access applications limited to documents containing the applicant's personal information.
The list of reviewable decisions has been expanded to include one that purports to, but may not, cover all documents in scope of an application. This makes sufficiency of search a specific reviewable decision, which means internal reviews can be made solely on sufficiency of search grounds. Agencies must be able to demonstrate not only that they made a decision, but that they searched comprehensively for all documents in scope.
Key Points for local governments and GOCs
In light of the above, local councils, GOCs and lawyers advising them should be pressing the following:
For local governments (with the 1 July 2026 MNDB deadline approaching):

• has a senior officer been designated with responsibility for IPOLA implementation?
• is there a compliant data breach policy and data breach response plan in place?
• has the privacy policy been updated to align with the new Queensland Privacy Principles?

For GOCs:

• has the entity confirmed whether it is listed in Schedule 2, Part 2 of the RTI Act, and if so, what are its current community service obligations?
• is there a publication scheme in place, calibrated against the ASX-disclosure benchmark?

The window for preparation is closing. Local government lawyers should be treating the 1 July 2026 MNDB commencement as a firm deadline requiring active project management.
Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.