POSH Compliance In Public Sector Banks Under Scrutiny As CIC Orders Fresh Hearing On RTI Appeal Over Sexual Harassment Law : Deeksha Pandey

FPJ: New Delhi: Tuesday, October 20, 2026.
The Central Information Commission has directed the Women and Child Development Ministry to reconsider an RTI appeal seeking POSH Act compliance details from public sector banks. Applicant Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury alleged incomplete disclosure and denial of a hearing. The CIC ordered fresh adjudication, a fair hearing and a reasoned decision.

POSH Compliance In Public Sector Banks Under Scrutiny As CIC Orders Fresh Hearing On RTI Appeal Over Sexual Harassment Law | File Pic

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has sent back a Right to Information (RTI) appeal to the Ministry of Women and Child Development for fresh consideration, directing its First Appellate Authority (FAA) to ensure a fair hearing for an applicant seeking details on compliance with workplace sexual harassment laws in public sector banks.
Applicant Raises Concerns Over POSH Compliance
The applicant, Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa case, alleging that public sector banks had failed to set up Internal Committees as mandated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
He sought information on banks registered with the SHe-Box portal, annual returns filed under the law, penalties imposed for violations and court cases involving women who had raised complaints.
SHe-Box is the Central Government’s online platform for registering and monitoring workplace sexual harassment complaints.
Ministry Says Information Was Not Available In Consolidated Form
Chowdhury argued that the ministry’s response was incomplete and that he had been denied a hearing despite expressly requesting one in his first appeal.
The ministry, however, maintained that it had shared all information available in its records. It identified the Department of Financial Services as the nodal department for the banking, financial services and insurance sector and advised Chowdhury to seek bank-specific information from the respective public information officers.
The ministry also clarified that its division concerned did not maintain consolidated records of annual returns, penalties or litigation involving individual public sector banks in the format requested.
CIC Questions Absence Of First Appeal Order
In a recent order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh directed the ministry’s FAA to examine the appeal afresh, give both parties an opportunity to present their arguments and issue a reasoned order.
The Commission observed that although the ministry claimed to have disposed of the first appeal, it had not submitted a copy of the relevant order.
“In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to verify the contents of the order stated to have been passed by the FAA or ascertain whether the Appellant’s request for a personal hearing was considered,” the order said.
The CIC directed the FAA to address the applicant’s grounds of appeal while passing a reasoned order.
Fresh Adjudication Ordered, Second Appeal Option Remains Open
The Commission clarified that it had not reached any final conclusion on the information requested or whether the ministry’s earlier response was adequate.
It remanded the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication following a fair hearing for both sides and directed the Public Information Officer to submit a compliance report.
Chowdhury can approach the CIC again through a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act if he is dissatisfied with the FAA’s fresh decision.

Delhi High Court says no need to disclose records of foreign travel in IAF aircraft by PM, ex-PM : Prashant Jha

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, October 20, 2026.
An ex-navy officer sought detailed records of PM Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh's foreign visits between 2013 and 2018.

Narendra Modi and Manmohan Singh

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing Indian Air Force to disclose detailed records relating to Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi and former PM Manmohan Singh’s foreign travel under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).  
Justice Amit Mahajan noted that the RTI applicant, retired Commodore Lokesh Batra, had sought details about Special Flight Returns (SFR) Part I & Part II, which include details of aircraft, aircrew, the entire entourage, including names of all the Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel travelling with the PM.
The Court observed that providing this information could compromise national security and endanger the PM's life and physical safety. 
“The potential implications of such disclosure for national security and the security apparatus accompanying the Hon’ble Prime Minister cannot be disregarded,” the High Court said in its October 15 order. 

Justice Mahajan ruled that the High Court or the CIC “cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent security agencies as to whether disclosure of particular information could jeopardise national security or endanger the life and physical safety of the Hon’ble Prime Minister”. 
“Such an assessment falls primarily within the domain of the agencies entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister and this Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent security agencies,” the Court said. 
The case arose from an RTI application filed in June 2018 by retired Commodore Lokesh K Batra. He sought details of foreign visits undertaken by Indian Prime Ministers on Indian Air Force aircraft between April 2013 to June 2018
While the Air Force provided information about certain visits, it refused to disclose SFR Part-I and Part-II details.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Air Force cited security concerns and also invoked the exemption for information held in a fiduciary capacity.
However, the CIC directed the Air Force to provide certified copies of available and relevant SFR-II records after redacting the names of security personnel.
This prompted the CPIO to approach the High Court.
Batra’s counsel told the Court that the information sought related to expenditure of public funds on PM’s foreign visits and was therefore, in the larger public interest. 
He clarified that the request concerned private individuals accompanying the PM at public expense, rather than the identities of security personnel.
However, the Court said that the mere fact that public funds have been expended on the foreign visits of the PM does not, by itself, “justify disclosure of information which may compromise the security arrangements put in place for such visits”.
It concluded that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of the SFR-II and therefore, set aside the order. 
Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Pratima N Lakra and advocate Shailendra Kumar Mishra appeared for the Indian Air Force. 
Advocates Prasanna S, Injila Muslim Zaidi, Ashish Reddy, Prasanna Balakumar and Ms. Ishita Tulsyan represented Commodore Lokesh Batra. 
[Clickhere to Read Order]

Probe move not against all RTI applicants: Kochi corp to information commission

Times of India: Kochi: Tuesday, October 20, 2026.

In a reply to State Information Commission, the Kochi corporation has stated that the local body’s demand to probe the financial status of those who continuously file RTI applications is not against all the RTI applicants. The commission had sought an explanation from the corporation secretary regarding the move.
The commission had termed the move as against the clauses in RTI Act. “It was not a resolution by the corporation. During a discussion at the corporation council held on Oct 7, several councillors came up with such a demand. That’s why we decided to collect the details of the RTI applicants and send it to the vigilance and anti-corruption bureau. The move is not against all RTI applicants but to rein in those who misuse it,” mayor V K Minimol said.
The mayor and UDF councillors allege that some of the RTI activists are collecting details by filing RTI applications and misusing such details for seeking bribes. At the same time, LDF councillors, including Elizabeth Idikkula, said the UDF council’s decision will kill the spirit of RTI Act which helps divulge information regarding the governance and various other aspects which are the lifeline of democracy.

In absence of watchdog, RTI turns into paper tiger in Chandigarh : By Priyanka Thakur

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Tuesday, October 20, 2026.
Despite these assurances, an analysis of multiple RTIs filed across departments reveals a recurring pattern of delayed responses, incomplete answers, and non-compliance with statutory deadlines

Designed to empower citizens to seek details on government budgets, expenditure, project status, and annual performance, the law is increasingly being reduced to a paper tiger. (HT File)

The absence of a dedicated state-level regulatory body or commission for the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has eroded the legislation’s effectiveness in Chandigarh. Designed to empower citizens to seek details on government budgets, expenditure, project status, and annual performance, the law is increasingly being reduced to a paper tiger.
Unlike states with dedicated State Information Commissions (SICs), Union Territories like Chandigarh rely on the Central Information Commission (CIC) in New Delhi as their second and final appellate authority. Responding to the structural gap, the office of the home secretary, Chandigarh, said: “Chandigarh is a UT without a legislature. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, jurisdiction over all central public authorities and UTs lies entirely with the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Deciding to establish a separate SIC rests with the ministry of home affairs. However, we are actively strengthening the internal first appellate mechanism to ensure timely resolution for citizens.”
Despite these assurances, an analysis of multiple RTIs filed across departments reveals a recurring pattern of delayed responses, incomplete answers, and non-compliance with statutory deadlines.
Sections 7(1) and 19(6) of the Act require Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) to respond within 30 days. First appeals may extend to 45 days only if written reasons for delay are recorded.
In practice, these timelines are regularly flouted:
Health department: In an appeal concerning brain stroke patient admissions and transfers from GMSH-16 to PGIMER over the past decade, the CPIO claimed on the 36th day that “no such report is available.” Following a first appeal, FAA Dr. Suman Singh provided the data after 107 days—offering no explanation for the delay.
UT estate office: An appeal filed with Estate Officer Nishant Kumar Yadav remained unanswered after 85 days.
Social welfare department: Seeking seat allocation details at the Sector 31 Group Home for mentally ill persons, an applicant was told the department lacked data. Under Section 6(3), the authority was required to transfer the request within five days; instead, it simply closed the file.
Rejections and pendency
The CIC Annual Report for 2024–25 shows that out of 12,457 RTI applications filed in Chandigarh, replies were provided for 9,900. A total of 1,568 appeals remained pending (with 200 scheduled for hearings), marking a 13% pendency rate.
Of the total applications, 745 (3%) were rejected. Significantly, 83% of these rejections cited Section 8 exemption clauses, with 157 applications turned down under Section 8(1)(j) on grounds of “personal information.”
Former Punjab chief information commissioner Ramesh Inder Singh said that the regulatory mandate is often misunderstood: “Central or state information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies whose primary role is to hear second appeals and penalize violating CPIOs. The primary responsibility to enforce the Act rests with the government; the commission plays an advisory role.”
Advocate HC Arora, who has filed over 400 PILs in the Punjab and Haryana high court and participated in the early 2000s RTI Activist Federation, added: “There is no local agency ensuring the Act is enforced. Neither central nor state governments prioritise its implementation, revealing a systemic loophole.”

RTI: I4C says it doesn’t hold Sahyog Portal records on notices, actions taken; role limited to facilitation

Media Nama: New Delhi: Tuesday, October 20, 2026.
The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) does not hold records of the Sahyog Portal, including “details of notices issued, actions taken, investigation outcomes, and jurisdiction-specific statistics”.

In its reply to MediaNama’s RTI application, I4C said this data is “held and maintained by the respective State/UT Police authorities or the issuing agencies”. It added that its own role “is limited to facilitation” and that it “does not control such detailed operational data”.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, also described the Sahyog Portal as a “facilitation portal” during arguments before the Karnataka High Court, according to the final judgment upholding the portal’s validity. The submissions on behalf of the government referred to it as “Sahyog – a mere facilitation portal for convenience of stakeholders”.
“This [Karnataka HC] Court is satisfied that the Sahyog portal is not an instrument of censorship, but a facilitation mechanism intended to streamline communication between authorized agencies and intermediaries. The recitals of difficulties faced by both the law enforcement agencies and intermediaries ranging from lack of reliable contact information to duplication of notices, delays and absence of accountability – demonstrates, the pressing need for a centralized and standardized platform. Therefore, the justification is completely acceptable. The nomenclature “Sahyog’ means co-operation is itself indicative of the collaborative intent underlying its establishment.” – Karnataka High Court
The Sahyog Portal, which centralises takedown notices issued under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, currently has at least 94 intermediaries onboarded. After X challenged the portal, the Supreme Court stayed all previous High Court judgments in the case.
What we asked: Following the BBC investigation published in July 2026, MediaNama filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and I4C seeking records of directions, notices and communications with social media intermediaries, including Meta and Google/YouTube, concerning the reporting and takedown of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
We also asked whether intermediaries are required to report such material to Indian authorities or the Sahyog Portal, in addition to the US-based National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Only recently, Google and Meta said they would report CSAM incidents to Indian officials.
Grounds for refusal: I4C said the information sought is held, “if at all”, by State/UT Police authorities. It also cited the following grounds for withholding the information:

• Disclosure could impede an investigation, the apprehension of offenders or their prosecution. The relevant section number is missing from the copy we received.
• Disclosure could prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity or security of the State, or endanger life or physical safety. I4C cited Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
• The information could involve third-party personal information.
• A larger public interest justifying disclosure had “not [been] established here”.
• Compiling scattered information held by multiple public authorities would fall outside the scope of the RTI Act.

What remains unanswered: The reply treats the application as a request for operational data from the Sahyog Portal (paragraph 1). However, our application sought I4C’s own administrative records and aggregate figures. We explicitly offered to accept redacted records, with personal information, URLs, handles, hashes and case-specific details removed.
The reply does not address our six questions:

1. Communications with Meta, Google/YouTube and other intermediaries: The reply does not say whether I4C or the MHA sent any notice, advisory, letter, email, standard operating procedure (SOP) or memorandum of understanding (MoU) to these companies concerning CSAM after July 1, 2026. It provides neither copies of such communications nor a list of them. It also does not state that no such records exist.
2. Requirements to report to the Sahyog Portal or another Indian authority: The reply does not clarify whether any order, SOP, circular or file noting records a requirement or request for intermediaries to report CSAM to Indian authorities.
3. Intermediary-wise aggregate figures: I4C provided no figures on CSAM-related reports received from Meta and Google/YouTube or details of how frequently and through what channels the companies report such material. The reply does not clarify whether I4C holds aggregate figures at all.
4. NCMEC versus Indian authorities: The reply does not mention NCMEC or clarify whether any record specifies that intermediaries must report CSAM to Indian authorities in addition to NCMEC, or only to NCMEC.
5. Severability and public interest: The reply does not say whether I4C considered partial disclosure under Section 10 of the RTI Act, despite our request for redacted records and aggregate figures. It dismisses the public-interest argument in one line without providing a reasoned explanation.
6. Question-wise reasons for refusal: We asked I4C to cite the specific provision and reasons for denying each item of information, as required under Section 7(8) of the RTI Act. Instead, the reply lists generic exemptions that appear to have been applied without addressing each question individually.

Our RTI application specifically asked whether platforms and intermediaries should report CSAM to Indian authorities or only to the US-based NCMEC. Any applicable requirement would likely be documented in an SOP or file noting, rather than in individual complaint records, which the MHA says are held by State/UT-level issuing authorities.
The reply neither clarifies whether such a document or requirement exists nor confirms that no such record is held.
Who issues orders through the Sahyog Portal? “For each state, there is a nodal officer, there is a touch point. For ministries which are likely to be impacted because of such content and which have a national security aspect, those are also the ministries which have got their own nodal officers,” said Rakesh Maheshwari, former senior director and group coordinator of MeitY’s Cyber Laws Division, during one of MediaNama’s discussions on the IT Rules and the future of online speech in India.

Karnataka expands offline RTI services through Sakala, Gram One centres

Business Line: Bengaluru: Monday, 19^th October 2026.
The facility is aimed at helping people who lack access to computers or are unfamiliar with using the internet.

Representative image | Photo Credit: HANDOUT

The Karnataka government on Sunday said that it has introduced two measures to make the RTI process more accessible to people and improve transparency, with the approval of Chief Minister D K Shivakumar.
Under the first measure, public authorities receiving physical RTI applications submitted by post or in person must register them on the Right to Information online portal within two days of receipt.
The registration of physical RTI applications has been notified as a guaranteed service under the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, 2011, according to an official statement.
The move will ensure that every applicant receives an online registration number and can track the status of the application at any time. It is also expected to reduce the possibility of applications being lost or overlooked
If an application is not registered on the portal within the stipulated two days, the applicant will be eligible for compensatory relief under the Sakala Act, and the concerned official will be held accountable, the statement said.
In another measure, the government has extended the facility to file RTI applications online through all Bengaluru One, Karnataka One and Gram One centres across the state.
The facility is aimed at helping people who lack access to computers or are unfamiliar with using the internet. Applicants can visit their nearest service centre and submit applications with the assistance of staff by paying the prescribed RTI fee and a nominal service charge. They will receive an online acknowledgement at the centre itself.
The extension of the service to Gram One centres at the gram panchayat level will make online RTI filing accessible to rural residents as well.
The measures will bring physical applications, online submissions and applications filed through service centres onto a common platform, facilitating monitoring of compliance with the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005.
They will also help identify delays by information officers more quickly and provide people with a reliable record of their applications, the statement said.
The measures were announced in a statement by Harsha Gupta, Principal Secretary, Department of Public Services.
The statement urged people to make use of the facility either through the online portal or through their nearest Bengaluru One, Karnataka One or Gram One centre.

Karnataka extends online RTI filing to all Bengaluru One, Karnataka One and Grama One centres

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Monday, 19^th October 2026.
Under the new provisions of the Sakala Services Act, 2011, public authorities receiving RTI applications by post or in person must register them on the RTI online portal within two days

The Karnataka government has brought the registration of physical Right to Information (RTI) applications under the Sakala Services Act, 2011, and extended online RTI filing facilities to all Bengaluru One, Karnataka One and Grama One centres to make the process more accessible and transparent.
Under the new provisions, public authorities receiving RTI applications by post or in person must register them on the RTI online portal within two days. The service has been notified as a guaranteed service under the Sakala Act, ensuring that applicants receive an online registration number and can track the status of their applications.
If an application is not uploaded within the stipulated two days, the applicant would be eligible for compensation under the Sakala Act, and the officer concerned would be held responsible, according to a statement issued by Harsh Gupta, Principal Secretary, Praja Seva Department.
Through service centres
The government has also extended online RTI filing through service centres to help people who do not have access to the internet or are unfamiliar with computers. Applicants can visit their nearest Bengaluru One, Karnataka One or Grama One centre and seek assistance from staff to submit an application.
Applicants will have to pay the prescribed RTI fee and a nominal service charge levied by the centre. An online acknowledgement will be issued at the centre itself. The extension to Grama One centres is intended to make online RTI filing accessible to people in rural areas through facilities at the gram panchayat level.
A Government Order (GO) issued in this regard said the measures would bring physical applications, direct online submissions and applications filed through service centres onto a common platform. This is expected to make it easier to monitor compliance with the timelines prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and identify delays by information officers.
Timelines for disposing appeals
The guidelines also prescribe timelines for the disposal of appeals under the RTI process. First appeals must be decided by the competent appellate authority within seven working days. Second appeals must also be disposed of within seven working days by the appellate authority concerned, identified in the GO as the Secretary of the department concerned.
The GO also provides for cases in which the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned is not registered on the RTI online portal. In such instances, the application must be forwarded to the district- or department-level nodal officer, who will be responsible for ensuring that the PIO is registered on the portal without delay.
Earlier, applications submitted physically could face delays before being entered into the online system. Bringing their registration under the Sakala framework makes the two-working-day deadline mandatory and is expected to help applicants monitor the status of their applications online, the statement said.
Govt. staff services
The State government has also issued a notification bringing a wide array of personnel and service-related requests of government employees under the ambit of the Karnataka Sakala Services Act, 2011.
Under the notification, the disbursement of salary and the issuance of salary certificates must be completed within three working days, while Form 16 issuance is set at five working days. A seven-working-day deadline applies to higher study permissions, festival advances, permission to draw first salary, and the routing of applications for KGID, GIS and GPF. Sanctioning leave, charge allowances, and issuing No Objection Certificates for passports must be settled within 10 working days.

Raj info panel fines Jaisalmer DIET principal for RTI violations

Times of India: Jaisalmer: Monday, 19^th October 2026.

Rajasthan State Information Commission (RSIC) imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the principal-cum-Public Information Officer (PIO) of the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Jaisalmer, for failing to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and repeatedly remaining absent from hearings.
Information commissioner Tikaram Sharma passed the order on a complaint by Satyanarayan Chhangani, a resident of Goydani Pada in Jaisalmer.
According to the complaint, Chhangani filed an RTI application on May 8, 2025, seeking information from DIET, Jaisalmer. On not getting information within the stipulated period, he filed a first appeal but received no relief. He subsequently approached RSIC.
On Oct 28, 2025, RSIC directed the authorities to provide the requested information available in the office records free of cost within 30 days. However, the information was still not provided, prompting Chhangani to file another complaint.
The principal reportedly stated that the requested information comprised more than 5,000 pages, making its compilation and supply a lengthy process. The applicant was also asked to inspect the records.
The Commission subsequently scheduled hearings on June 16, Aug 27 and Oct 6, 2026. However, the concerned officer remained absent on all three occasions.
Taking serious note of the repeated absence, failure to submit a response and non-compliance with its earlier directions.

RTI’s Growing Backlog

Daily Excelsior: National: Monday, 19^th October 2026.

The RTI Act has just come of age, and its birthday brings little cause for celebration. As of 30 June 2026, some 3.85 lakh appeals and complaints were pending across 28 information commissions. In Tripura, the estimated wait for disposal stretches to nearly twenty years; in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh it is only marginally shorter. A law meant to deliver information in thirty days now delivers a delay measured in decades. That is denial by another name. The CIC offers no comfort. Its pendency rose by 9,378 between January and October this year, despite a full complement of eleven commissioners. Nor is the picture improved by the practice of returning appeals without orders: nine commissions sent back 37,701 cases in a single year, the CIC alone returning 14,603 of the 31,179 registered. Earlier data suggest that most such appeals are never re-filed. Rejection on technical grounds quietly shrinks the backlog while shrinking the citizen's right with it.
The instinctive remedy is to add commissioners or benches. That may bring temporary relief only. Appeals multiply because first-stage responses fail; every unanswered or evasive reply from a public authority becomes another file on a commission's desk. However, additional offices, staff and premises carry recurring costs, and no exchequer can fund a queue that grows faster than capacity. The solution lies upstream, with the departments themselves. After twenty-one years, the Government holds ample data to identify which offices generate the most appeals, which routinely ignore deadlines and which withhold information without justification. It should act on it. Every department should be required to publish a monthly report. Such returns would expose poor performers at once and make good practice visible.
Accountability must then follow. The head of each department should answer for non-response, unjustified refusal and concealment. The Act already provides for penalties, yet commissions seldom impose them, and recovery is rarer still. When officials know that delay costs them personally, compliance will improve faster than any new bench could manage. Commissions, for their part, must stop treating procedure as a gatekeeper. Appeals from poor and marginalised citizens, who often proceed without legal help, should not founder on formatting. If the basic material is present, the case should be heard. None of this requires fresh legislation or large budgets, only political will. Left unaddressed, rising pendency will hollow out the Act from within, leaving a statute that promises transparency and delivers opacity.

CIC orders probe into alleged plot allotment fraud in Panipat

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Sunday, October 18, 2026.
The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) has directed the Estate Officer (EO), Panipat, of the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to conduct an inquiry into an alleged fraud in the allotment of a plot in Sector 11 in the city.

PP Kapoor, an RTI activist, sought information regarding a plot in Sector 11 from the HSVP Estate Office in Panipat under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on July 17 last year. iStock photo

PP Kapoor, an RTI activist, sought information regarding a plot in Sector 11 from the HSVP Estate Office in Panipat under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on July 17 last year. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the Estate Officer refused to provide the information, stating that it was third-party information.
Following this, Kapoor filed an appeal with the State Information Commission.
During the hearing, Kapoor presented his submissions before the commission, alleging that a major fraud had taken place in the allotment of the plot. He further alleged that the Estate Officer was deliberately withholding the information to conceal the alleged fraud.
Kapoor said he had sought information on several aspects of the plot, including whether it had been registered by an authorised person in 1997 and whether the person's identity had been properly established and verified.
He also sought to know whether the transfer of the plot in 1997 had been carried out in accordance with the rules of HSVP, then known as the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
He further questioned how the building plan approval letter and the Building Occupation Certificate (OC) were issued in 2012 in the name of an authorised person when the plot had not been transferred in HSVP's records at the time. He also sought clarification on whether the signatures on the relevant applications belonged to authorised persons.
During the hearing on October 9, Chief Information Commissioner TVSN Prasad directed the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panipat, to conduct a detailed inquiry into the alleged fraud in the allotment of the plot and submit an inquiry report to the commission by October 22.

RTI panel issues bailable warrants against Ludhiana SHO for skipping three hearings: By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Sunday, October 18, 2026.
The commission also noted that a show-cause notice had been issued to the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on June 17, 2026, but the officer had failed to submit a reply despite being given an opportunity to do so

Punjab State Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against Jitender Kumar, station house officer (SHO) of Daba police station in Ludhiana, for repeatedly skipping hearings in an appeal over the non-disclosure of information sought under the transparency law.
The commission, presided over by State Information Commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu, took the action after noting that the public information officer (PIO) had remained absent during three consecutive hearings on December 22, 2025, March 10, 2026, and June 17, 2026, despite notices being sent through registered post.
The commission observed that the officer’s repeated non-appearance had hampered the proceedings, delayed the disposal of the appeal and reflected disregard for the authority of the statutory body. It noted that such conduct undermined the effective implementation of the RTI Act, 2005, which is intended to promote transparency and accountability in public administration.
The warrants were issued in appeal, filed by Balwinderjeet Kaur Mann against the public information officer attached to Daba police station and the first appellate authority in the office of the Ludhiana commissioner of police.
The case took a further turn after the appellant’s daughter, Rattan Kaur Mann, appeared before the commission and informed it that her mother had died. She requested permission to pursue the appeal on her deceased mother’s behalf to obtain the requisite information. The commission directed her to produce a legal heir certificate and an authorisation letter.
The commission also noted that a show-cause notice had been issued to the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on June 17, 2026, but the officer had failed to submit a reply despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Exercising its powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act, the commission directed Ludhiana Commissioner of Police Swapan Sharma to ensure service of the bailable warrants and secure the SHO’s presence, along with the information sought in the RTI application dated June 11, 2025.
The commission further warned that if the SHO failed to appear at the next hearing, an appropriate recommendation would be sent to the Punjab director general of police in accordance with the law.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 25, 2026.

An active Information Commission is vital to democracy: Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday, October 18, 2026.

The Right to Information (RTI) is widely regarded as a tool for promoting transparency and exposing corruption. But its democratic significance goes far beyond that. It enables citizens to question arbitrary decisions, challenge unfair treatment, scrutinise public expenditure, and determine whether public institutions are fulfilling their responsibilities. RTI is not simply about obtaining documents; it also ensures that those exercising public power remain accountable to the people.
Recent experiences in India and Sri Lanka illustrate these wider possibilities. They also offer important lessons for Bangladesh, where the RTI Act provides citizens with similar legal rights. Unfortunately, the law’s effectiveness has been seriously undermined by the prolonged absence of the three information commissioners for over two years.
An instructive example comes from India, where RTI applications have examined whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) and government departments have complied with Supreme Court directives to revise electoral rolls, a subject that has roiled the nation recently.
In an article published in The Wire on October 9, 2026, prominent RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak described how he sought information from the ECI and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding action taken following the court’s directives concerning individuals whose citizenship had been questioned during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court distinguished between determining eligibility for voter registration and formally deciding citizenship. It directed the ECI to refer relevant cases to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act for adjudication. The distinction is crucial: exclusion from an electoral roll does not automatically determine a person’s citizenship.
Nayak sought details of cases referred for adjudication, the authorities responsible, and communications exchanged between the ECI and the government. The responses raised troubling questions. The ECI initially said it did not hold the requested information, but later transferred the applications between departments. Responses also exceeded the statutory 30-day deadline.
The fundamental question is straightforward: how can citizens determine whether judicial directives are being implemented when responsible authorities cannot provide clear information about the action taken?
This case’s significance extends beyond India’s electoral system. Nayak used RTI to seek documentary evidence of compliance with a legal obligation, rather than relying on official assurances. Although the responses don’t conclusively establish that the directives were ignored, they expose weaknesses in administrative accountability.
This illustrates an essential democratic function of RTI: enabling citizens to compare what the law requires with what public authorities actually do.
Sri Lanka offers another example of RTI’s importance in protecting individual rights. In one case, its Right to Information Commission directed its health ministry to disclose two complaint letters a doctor facing disciplinary proceedings had sought. The ministry refused disclosure, arguing that an investigation was in progress. The commission found that the ministry had failed to show how releasing the letters would prejudice the investigation.
The principle is important. A person facing disciplinary proceedings must have a fair opportunity to know and respond to the allegations. An ongoing investigation cannot automatically justify withholding relevant information. Access to documents may be indispensable to securing a fair hearing.
Sri Lankan citizens have also used RTI to establish whether police acted on complaints and to obtain records explaining administrative decisions. Such cases demonstrate how access to information can help identify official failures, challenge arbitrary decisions, and seek remedies. They also reinforce the principle that secrecy must be justified under specific legal exemptions rather than treated as the normal practice of government.
India’s experience highlights another obstacle: delay. In Shailesh Gandhi vs Maharashtra State Information Commission (2025), the Bombay High Court emphasised that second appeals, equivalent to Bangladesh’s complaint mechanism, should be decided expeditiously, even where the law prescribes no specific deadline. The lesson applies equally to Bangladesh. A right that takes years to enforce may become meaningless to someone seeking information to challenge an injustice.
These examples show that RTI can protect individual rights, expose administrative shortcomings, and help determine whether public authorities are complying with their legal responsibilities. Access to information by itself does not guarantee justice, but it provides the evidence citizens need to pursue accountability through administrative or judicial channels.
For Bangladesh, these lessons are particularly relevant. Citizens can use the RTI Act to scrutinise public procurement, development expenditure, recruitment, delivery of essential services, and implementation of government policies. Journalists and civil society organisations can use it to verify official claims, trace public expenditure, and examine whether promised measures have actually been implemented.
RTI can also transform individual grievances into matters of wider public concern. Information on a delayed development project, an unexplained recruitment decision, or the failure to deliver public services can provide the factual basis for public debate and corrective action.
However, these rights depend on a functioning enforcement mechanism. The Information Commission in Bangladesh has remained without its three commissioners for over two years, depriving citizens of the statutory body responsible for adjudicating complaints and enforcing compliance. This institutional paralysis threatens to undermine the law’s very purpose.
The government must, therefore, act without further delay to restore the commission to full functionality. Citizens must also be encouraged to exercise their rights, while public authorities must recognise that providing information is a legal obligation, not an administrative favour.
Democracy cannot be sustained by elections alone. Citizens must be able to examine how decisions are made, how public money is spent, and whether those entrusted with authority are performing their duties.
India’s experience demonstrates how RTI can test compliance with judicial directions. Sri Lanka’s experience shows its value in protecting individual rights and challenging unjustified secrecy. Both underline a fundamental truth: democracy requires not just the right to vote but also the continuing right to question those who govern.
Ultimately, RTI enables citizens to move from suspicion to evidence, from unanswered questions to documented facts, and from passive acceptance to informed participation. Its true democratic value emerges when citizens can use information to demand accountability and seek remedies. Hence, for Bangladesh, restoring a fully functioning Information Commission is a test of the government’s commitment to democratic accountability and the people’s right to know.

---

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

---

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

HC directs CIC to dispose of prof’s query on controller appointment in 2 months

Times of India: Puducherry: Sunday, October 18, 2026.

Madras high court has directed the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi, to consider and dispose of a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by a teaching faculty member at a govt arts and science college in Puducherry within a period of eight weeks.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by assistant professor and head of the department of botany at Tagore Government Arts and Science College (TAC), Puducherry S Ramakrishnan.
He had had initially filed an RTI application on Feb 20, 2026, seeking information relating to the appointment of the controller of examinations and deputy controllers of examinations in TAC.
Dissatisfied with the response provided by the PIO, he filed a first appeal on March 24, 2026, before the First Appellate Authority (principal in-charge) of the college. As the outcome of the first appeal remained unsatisfactory, the professor preferred a second appeal before the CIC on May 23, 2026.
Aggrieved by the delay in the disposal of his second appeal by the CIC, he then approached the Madras high court in Sept. During the proceedings, Puducherry govt advocate Ramaswamy Meyyappan assured the court that the second appeal would be disposed of at the earliest in accordance with the law.
Recording the submission, the high court disposed of the petition with a specific directive on Oct 1 to the Registrar of the CIC to decide on the second appeal on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

CIC urges surprise inspections of CBSE schools to curb dummy admissions

India Today: New Delhi: Friday, 16^th October 2026.
The CIC recommended surprise inspections of CBSE-affiliated schools over alleged dummy admissions. The move seeks stricter enforcement of attendance requirements for board examinations.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended surprise inspections of schools affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to check alleged dummy admissions and ensure compliance with mandatory attendance rules, news agency Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi made the recommendation in a recent order after a complaint alleged that schools were issuing dummy certificates to students who did not attend classes.
Invoking Section 25(5) of the Right to Information Act, the commission said surprise inspections would help ensure checks and balances at affiliated schools.
“The Commission, considering the gravity of the issue flagged by the complainant seeking information regarding issuance of dummy certificates by schools to students not attending classes, deems it fit to recommend the CBSE under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 to exercise the power of conducting a surprise inspection,” the order said.
COMPLAINT FILED THROUGH AN RTI
According to PTI, the complaint was filed by an RTI applicant seeking information about attendance requirements at private missionary schools in Bhopal, as well as the board's rules on subject selection and prescribed textbooks.
The complainant told the commission that the application was filed to expose alleged dummy admissions, under which students obtain examination results without attending classes.
The CBSE's central public information officer initially returned the application, citing an error in the Indian Postal Order submitted as the application fee. The applicant was asked to provide a valid payment instrument payable to the CBSE secretary in Bhopal.
During the hearing, the commission said rejecting the application on technical grounds was not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. “Denial of information on technicality is not in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005,” it said, adding that the officer was expected to help provide a point-wise response.
The officer apologised and agreed to provide the information. The CBSE later submitted a point-wise reply, which was taken on record, PTI reported.
In its response, the board cited its Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2018, which bar affiliated schools from presenting students for board examinations if they have not attended classes regularly or do not meet the prescribed minimum attendance requirement.
The commission's recommendation seeks to ensure that CBSE-affiliated schools follow attendance rules and do not allow students who have not regularly attended classes to appear for board examinations.

RTI Appeals Must Be Decided Within 8 Weeks, High Court Orders

Urban Acres: Chennai: Friday, 16^th October 2026.

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Information Commission to decide two pending second appeals under the Right to Information Act within eight weeks of receiving the court order, addressing delays in a process intended to provide citizens access to public records.
The direction was issued in a petition filed by Ramakrishnan, head of the Botany Department at Puducherry’s Tagore Government Arts and Science College. The case arose after information sought under the RTI Act from the officer holding charge as the college principal was not considered satisfactory by the petitioner.
After the information supplied by the college authorities failed to resolve his concerns, Ramakrishnan filed an appeal under the RTI process. He remained dissatisfied with the response at that stage as well and subsequently filed two second appeals before the Central Information Commission.
Those appeals remained pending for a prolonged period, prompting Ramakrishnan to approach the High Court. The petition challenged the delay in taking decisions on the second appeals and sought action on the matters that had already moved through the earlier stages of the information-access process.
In its order, the High Court directed the Central Information Commission to examine the two pending appeals on their merits and issue appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar specified that the action should be completed within eight weeks from the date on which the commission receives a copy of the court order.
The direction places a clear time limit on the disposal of the two appeals, but it does not predetermine the outcome of the information dispute. The commission is required to assess the substance of the appeals and pass orders according to the applicable legal provisions.
The case highlights the procedural stages through which an RTI request can move when the initial response is considered inadequate: a request to the relevant public authority, an appeal against the response, and a second appeal before the information commission. In this matter, the petitioner’s grievance was that the final appellate stage had remained undecided for an extended period.
For applicants seeking records from public institutions, delays at the second-appeal stage can leave a dispute unresolved even after the original request and subsequent appeal have been processed. The High Court’s order now sets a specific deadline for the Central Information Commission to act on the two appeals linked to the Puducherry college.
The commission must complete its consideration and issue the legally appropriate orders within eight weeks after receiving the court order copy.

बिहार में RTI एक्टिविस्ट होना इतना जोखिम भरा क्यों? घोटालों का पर्दाफाश करने वाले शिव प्रकाश राय की कहानी उन्हीं की जुबानी

ETV Bharat: Patna: Friday, 16^th October 2026.
करोड़ों के घोटाले उजागर करने वाले आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट शिव प्रकाश राय ने राजनीति के बड़े ऑफर्स ठुकरा कर सिर्फ सच का साथ चुना. रिपोर्ट-रंजीत कुमार

पटना में RTI एक्टिविस्ट शिव प्रकाश राय (ETV Bharat)

'मैं सिर्फ 17 साल का था, लेकिन ब्लॉक सर्किल ऑफिसर के ऑफिस में भागा, जो एक गांव वाले को चीनी का परमिट नहीं दे रहे थे, मेरी बहस शुरू हो गई और मुझे ड्यूटी पर मौजूद एक सरकारी कर्मचारी को परेशान करने के लिए गिरफ्तार करके जेल भेज दिया गया..''ये शब्द हैं बिहार के 70 वर्षीय आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट शिव प्रकाश राय के.
कई घोटालों का पर्दाफाश
आरटीआई के जरिए बिहार की जड़ें हिलाने वाले शिव प्रकाश राय ने इसी 'सूचना के अधिकार' की मदद से कई घोटालों का पर्दाफाश किया. भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई कमजोर न पड़ें इसके लिए राजनीति में आने का ऑफर भी ठुकरा दिया.

मुसीबतों का सामना
RTI एक्टिविस्ट शिव प्रकाश राय ने बिहार में कई घोटालों का पर्दाफाश किया है, चाहे वह 2013 में 100 करोड़ रुपये का सोलर लैंप खरीद घोटाला हो या 4,000 करोड़ रुपये का धान घोटाला. भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ इस कठिन लड़ाई के लिए उन्हें कई मुसीबतों का सामना करना पड़ा, कई झंझावात झेले, 29 दिन जेल की सजा भी भुगतनी पड़ी, पर इनका सफर आज भी जारी है.
भ्रष्टाचार के मामले में दूसरे स्थान पर बिहार
भ्रष्टाचार के मामले में बिहार राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर दूसरे स्थान पर है, और राज्य में कई लोग भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लंबे समय से लड़ाई भी लड़ रहे हैं. बिहार में आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट होना इतना आसान भी नहीं हैं. शिव प्रकाश राय बताते कि बिहार में अब तक 20 से 25 आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट्स की हत्या हो चुकी है.
उत्पीड़न के झूठे मामले दर्ज
शिव प्रकाश के मुताबिक इसके अलावा 250 से 300 आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट्स के खिलाफ उत्पीड़न के झूठे मामले दर्ज किए गए हैं. कई बार उन्हें डराया धमकाया भी जाता है. उन्होंने बताया कि मैं आज तक ना तो किसी से डरा हूं ना ही प्रलोभन के झांसे में आया हूं.

पुणे में दर्ज हुई थी पहली आरटीआई
अपने इस सफर के बारे में बात करते हुए शिव प्रकाश कहते हैं कि फर्जी मुकदमे में जेल जाने के बाद भी हमारा अभियान थमा नहीं है और अनवरत जारी है. उन्होंने बताया कि भारत में सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम (RTI Act 2005) के तहत दायर की जाने वाली पहली आरटीआई (RTI) पुणे के एक पुलिस स्टेशन में शाहिद रज़ा बर्नी (Shahid Raza Burney) द्वारा दायर की गई थी.
17 साल की उम्र में गए जेल
शिव प्रकाश एक घटना का जिक्र करते हुए कहते हैं कि मैंने तब भी जानकारी के लिए बहुत कोशिश की. तब मैं सिर्फ 17 साल का था, लेकिन ब्लॉक सर्किल ऑफिसर के ऑफिस में भागा, जो एक गांव वाले को चीनी का परमिट नहीं दे रहे थे, मेरी बहस शुरू हो गई और मुझे ड्यूटी पर मौजूद एक सरकारी कर्मचारी को परेशान करने के लिए गिरफ्तार करके जेल भेज दिया गया.

आरटीआई: भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ हथियार
शिव प्रकाश राय पिछले 25 साल से हर रोज बक्सर से पटना आते हैं और भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई को धार देने में लग जाते हैं. उन्होंने आरटीआई को भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई का हथियार बनाया है. इसी की मदद से कई बड़े घोटाले का पर्दाफाश भी किया है और यह सिलसिला आज भी अनवरत जारी है.
फर्जी मुकदमे में 29 दिनों तक जेल
शिव प्रकाश राय धान खरीद घोटाला, शिक्षक नियुक्ति घोटाला, बालू घोटाला, अलकतरा घोटाला, पेंशन, भूमि और बॉडीगार्ड नियुक्ति सहित कई मामलों को पटल पर लेकर आए. वहीं इस संघर्ष की कीमत भी उन्हें चुकानी पड़ी, एक झूठे मुकदमे में 29 दिनों तक जेल में भी रहना पड़ा, हालांकि बाद में जांच के दौरान केस असत्य पाया गया.
जब सवाल पूछना बन गया अपराध
दरअसल साल 2008 में तत्कालीन बक्सर जिलाधिकारी विष्णुदेव प्रसाद सिंह ने शिवप्रकाश राय पर आरोप लगाया कि वे डीएम के कक्ष में घुसकर हर महीने 25 हजार रुपये रंगदारी मांग रहे थे, शिव प्रकाश राय के खिलाफ प्राथमिक की भी दर्ज कराई गई. मामले में उन्हें जेल भेजा गया और वे 29 दिन जेल में बंद रहे. बाद में पुलिस अधीक्षक ने यह मामला असत्य पाया, जिसके बाद उन्हें रोप मुक्त करार दिया गया.
"जब भ्रष्टाचार उजागर होता है, तो प्रशासनिक अधिकारी दबाव और झूठे केस जैसे अवैध तरीकों का सहारा लेते है. यह घटना मेरे जीवन का निर्णायक मोड़ बनी और मैने आरटीआई कार्यकर्ताओं पर हो रहे उत्पीड़न को बड़े पैमाने पर उठाना शुरू किया." -शिव प्रकाश राय, आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट

बक्सर के तत्कालीन डीएम हुए बेनकाब
शिव प्रकाश राय बताते हैं कि बक्सर के किसानों को सरकार की ओर से बोरिंग और ट्यूबेल लगाने के लिए राशि भेजी गई थी जिसमें 80% सब्सिडी थी. किसानों के खेतों तक बोरिंग तो नहीं पहुंचे लेकिन पैसों की बंदरबांट जरूर हो गई. मामले का खुलासा उनके आरटीआई के जरिए हुआ था. जिस दुकान से खरीद की बात कही गई थी वह दुकान बक्सर में था ही नहीं. बाद में कई अधिकारी बाद में सस्पेंड हुए.
धान खरीद घोटाले का भी हुआ पर्दाफाश
शिव प्रकाश राय का सबसे बड़ा योगदान बिहार के अन्दर धान खरीद घोटाले को उजागर करने में रहा है. अगस्त 2012 में उन्होंने मुख्यमंत्री जनशिकायत प्रकोष्ठ को पत्र लिखकर आरोप लगाया कि सरकारी धान को मिलों द्वारा खुले बाजार में बेचा जा रहा था और मीलिंग के नाम पर बड़े पैमाने पर गड़बड़ी हो रही थी.
उचित जांच और कार्रवाई नहीं
शिव प्रकाश बताते हैं कि उन्होंने इस मामले की जानकारी खाद्य एवं उपभोक्ता संरक्षण विभाग और सतर्कता विभाग के प्रमुख सचिवों को भी भेजी. अक्टूबर 2012 में सतर्कता विभाग के संयुक्त सचिव ने खाद्य विभाग को कार्रवाई के लिए पत्र भेजा, लेकिन राय का आरोप रहा कि मामले में उचित जांच और कार्रवाई नहीं की गई.
3000 करोड़ से अधिक का धान खरीद घोटाला
ये मामला इतना बड़ा बना कि बाद में पटना हाईकोर्ट तक पहुंच गया. राय ने धान घोटाले पर याचिका दायर की और आरोप लगाया कि केंद्र व राज्य सरकारें आरोपियों को बचाने में जुटी हैं. राज्य में इस घोटाले का अनुमान 3,000 करोड़ रुपये से अधिक का बताया गया था, हालांकि बाद में मामले को आर्थिक अपराध अधिकारी को दिया गया और आरोपियों से कुछ हद तक रिकवरी भी हुई.
बॉडीगार्ड नियुक्ति घोटाला में 100 करोड़ का नुकसान
धान खरीद के अलावा शिव प्रकाश राय ने कई अन्य मामलों में सूचना मांगकर भ्रष्टाचार की परतें खोलीं और उन मामलों को उजागर किया. उनकी आरटीआई से बॉडीगार्ड नियुक्ति घोटाला सामने आया. बॉडीगार्ड नियुक्ति घोटाला में कैग की रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक राज्य को 100 करोड़ रुपये से अधिक का राजस्व नुकसान हुआ था.
सूचना के बदले अधिकारियों ने मांगे 1 करोड़ से अधिक
शिव प्रकाश अपने साथ हुई एक दिलचस्प घटना का जिक्र करते हुए कहते हैं कि जब बेगूसराय में भू-माफिया की गतिविधियों की जांच के लिए भूमि रजिस्ट्रेशन से जुड़े दस्तावेज देखने की मांग की गई, तो इसके बदले अधिकारियों ने उनसे 1.34 करोड़ रुपये की फीस मांग ली. शिव प्रकाश ने इसे आरटीआई के इस्तेमाल को रोकने की कोशिश करार दिया.
आरटीआई कार्यकर्ताओं पर हमले
शिव प्रकाश राय बताते हैं कि बिहार में एक दशक में आरटीआई कार्यकर्ताओं के खिलाफ हिंसा और उत्पीड़न के 213 मामले दर्ज हुए, लेकिन जिम्मेदार अधिकारियों या व्यक्तियों पर कार्रवाई की जानकारी नहीं दी गई. इनमें से अधिकतर मामले पंचायत योजनाओं, पैक्स द्वारा धान खरीद, मनरेगा और शिक्षक भर्ती से जुड़े थे.उनके मुताबिक जानकारी मांगने वालों की हत्या, धमकी और झूठे मामलों में फंसाना आम बात बन गई है.
शिक्षा विभाग में नियुक्ति घोटाले का पर्दाफाश
बिहार के शिक्षा विभाग में हुए नियुक्ति और वेतन घोटालों में मुख्य रूप से फर्जी डिग्रियों, फर्जी दस्तावेजों और कागजों पर मौजूद, लेकिन अनुपस्थित शिक्षकों (घोस्ट टीचर्स) के नाम पर सरकारी खजाने से अवैध रूप से वेतन निकासी का मामला शामिल रहा है.
मामले को उच्च न्यायालय तक पहुंचाया
हाल ही में हजारों फर्जी शिक्षकों की बर्खास्तगी और वेतन वसूली की कार्रवाई की गई है. शिव प्रकाश राय ने ही मामले को उच्च न्यायालय तक पहुंचाया. इनके प्रयास से बड़े पैमाने पर शिक्षा विभाग में भ्रष्टाचार के मामले सामने आए.
सुशील मोदी ने दिया था न्यौता
शिव प्रकाश राय ने ईटीवी भारत से बातचीत में बताया कि वे अटल बिहारी वाजपेई को बेहद पसंद करते थे. उन्होंने कहा कि सुशील मोदी ने कई बार मुझसे मिलने की कोशिश की दो बार न्योता भी दिया, शायद वह मुझे राजनीति में लाना चाहते थे मैं इसलिए राजनीति में नहीं गया क्योंकि मेरी लड़ाई कमजोर हो सकती थी. कुल मिलाकर शिवप्रकाश राय के संघर्ष और घोटालों के पर्दाफाश ने बिहार की सियासत में भी गूंज पैदा की.
"सुशील मोदी ने कई बार मुझसे मिलने की कोशिश की दो बार न्योता भी दिया, शायद वह मुझे राजनीति में लाना चाहते थे मैं इसलिए राजनीति में नहीं गया क्योंकि मेरी लड़ाई कमजोर हो सकती थी. मुझे लोग राजनीतिक चश्मे से देखने लगते."- शिव प्रकाश राय, आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट
66 जनहित याचिका दायर की
69 साल उम्र पूरी कर चुके शिव प्रकाश राय अब तक 66 जनित याचिका दायर कर चुके हैं. बिहार में भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों को लगातार सामने ला रहे हैं. शिव प्रकाश राय कहते हैं कि शुरुआत के 10 साल तो आरटीआई एक मजबूत हथियार था लेकिन बाद के दिनों में सरकार ने आरटीआई के धार को कुंद किया और आयोग में आरोग्य अधिकारियों की तैनाती की गई.
"हम वीर कुंवर सिंह की धरती के हैं. 80 साल में उन्होंने अंग्रेजों के खिलाफ तलवार उठाई थी हम भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई से ना तो थके हैं ना ही रुकने वाले हैं. भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ मेरी यह लड़ाई जारी रहेगी चाहे इसके लिए मुझे जान की कीमत क्यों न चुकानी पड़े."- शिव प्रकाश राय, आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट
क्या है आरटीआई कानून ?
गौरतलब है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम (RTI Act 2005) भारत सरकार और सरकारी विभागों में पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही लाने वाला एक बेहद मजबूत कानून है. यह अधिनियम 15 जून 2005 को संसद से पारित हुआ और 12 अक्टूबर 2005 से पूरे देश में पूरी तरह लागू हो गया.
आवेदन की फीस
इस कानून के तहत कोई भी आम नागरिक सरकारी कामकाज की जानकारी मांग सकता है, जिसके लिए सामान्य तौर पर सिर्फ ₹10 का आवेदन शुल्क तय किया गया है. हालांकि, गरीबी रेखा से नीचे (BPL) आने वाले नागरिकों को इस फीस से पूरी छूट दी गई है.
जवाब मिलने की तय समय-सीमा
आरटीआई के तहत जानकारी देने के लिए सरकार ने सख्त समय-सीमा तय की है। किसी भी सामान्य मामले में लोक सूचना अधिकारी को आवेदन मिलने के 30 दिनों के भीतर जवाब देना है. वहीं, अगर मामला किसी व्यक्ति के जीवन या उसकी व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता से जुड़ा हो, तो प्रशासन को मात्र 48 घंटों के भीतर जानकारी देनी पड़ती है. इसके अलावा, यदि मांगी गई जानकारी किसी तीसरी पार्टी से संबंधित हो, तो इसके लिए 40 दिन का समय निर्धारित है.
लापरवाही बरतने पर भारी जुर्माना
यदि कोई लोक सूचना अधिकारी तय समय में जानकारी नहीं देता या जानबूझकर लापरवाही बरतता है, तो कानून में कड़े जुर्माने का प्रावधान है. देर की स्थिति में दोषी अधिकारी पर ₹250 प्रतिदिन के हिसाब से जुर्माना लगाया जाता है. यह जुर्माना राशि अधिकतम ₹25,000 तक हो सकती है, जो सीधे अधिकारी की सैलरी से कटती है.