In RTI reply, MEA silent over CM’s US clearance

The Times of India: Hyderabad: Friday, 4^th September 2026.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has refused to disclose file notings, correspondence and other records related to political clearance for chief minister A Revanth Reddy’s proposed US visit, citing RTI Act provisions protecting information that could affect India’s relations with foreign countries.

In its reply to an RTI application, the MEA said political clearance requests were processed based on various factors, some of which could contain sensitive information and have a bearing on India’s diplomatic relations with the concerned country.
The ministry, however, confirmed that political clearance was granted for Revanth Reddy’s UK visit in Aug 2026. It did not clarify whether clearance for his proposed US visit was granted, denied or withheld.
The RTI application, filed by activist Robin Zaccheus, sought certified copies of records, file notings, correspondence, criteria documents, statistical data and other material relating to the political clearance process for foreign visits by chief ministers. It specifically sought details of the Telangana gov’s applications for Revanth Reddy’s proposed UK and US visits in Aug as part of the Telangana Rising programme.
The MEA invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, saying disclosure of the records could have implications for diplomatic relations.
It also said the information sought in the specific format was not maintained by the ministry. Compiling it would require extensive collation of data on individual visits from state govts, ministries and departments, amounting to creation of new information beyond its obligations under the RTI Act.
The ministry further cited Section 7(9), stating that undertaking such an exercise would result in inappropriate diversion of its resources.
The reply, received after the application was filed on Aug 23 and disposed of on Sept 3, comes amid questions over the cancellation of Revanth Reddy’s proposed US leg.
However, the MEA response does not establish why the US visit was cancelled or clarify whether political clearance for the trip had been granted or denied.

Growing RTI discomfort puts J&K Govt offices under CIC scanner

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Friday, 4^th September 2026.
The Right to Information Act promises citizens a legal route to obtain information from Public Authorities, but latest proceedings before the Central Information Commission (CIC) suggest that several Government offices in Jammu and Kashmir are still struggling or reluctant to deal with such queries in the manner mandated by law.

In four separate matters involving the Social Welfare Department, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Block Development Office, Bhaderwah and office of Deputy Commissioner Jammu, the CIC has flagged a series of lapses in handling RTI applications, including failure to respond within the prescribed timeframe, deemed refusal, an RTI application being addressed to none (Blank), an invalid transfer under Section 6(3), failure to appreciate statutory exemptions and repeated non-compliance with the Commission's directions.
The order concerning the Social Welfare Department is particularly significant as the information sought related to the National Crèche Scheme, Grant-in-Aid released to NGOs/VOs and Utilization Certificates and PFMS-generated payment advice concerning liabilities of 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The CIC found that the CPIO's submissions did not explain why the September 18, 2024 letter forwarding the RTI application was addressed to "none", nor did they explain the inordinate delay in initiating action on March 26, 2025.
The Commission further observed that no reply had been provided within the prescribed timeframe, resulting in a deemed refusal under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act. It also held that the CPIO had erroneously transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to the concerned NGOs, which were not shown as Public Authorities.
The CPIO had sought to explain that the records were maintained by the concerned NGOs/VOs and that efforts were made to obtain them. However, the CIC said the reply did not clarify whether the information was available with the department and held that the CPIO could not simply shift the onus to the NGOs.
According to the Commission, Sections 2(f) and 2(j) envisage that a Public Authority should provide information under their control or information which can be accessed from the record-holder office/private body under any law. A cogent reply was therefore required instead of simply shifting the onus to the NGOs and alleging their inaction or non-response.
The CPIO has been asked to submit a cogent response explaining why action should not be taken under Section 20 for failure to reply within the stipulated timeframe, the letter dated September 18, 2024 being addressed to "none", and the invalid transfer under Section 6(3).
In the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah case, the CIC has gone a step further, warning the CPIO of ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action in case of any further non-compliance.
The applicant had sought detailed information about works undertaken in Panchayat Dheraja during 2023-24, including funds received for clearing vendor bills and skilled labour payments, details of vendor bills and skilled payments, names and addresses of skilled labourers, amounts credited, Gram Sabha register and copies of files and measurement books relating to payments.
After the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide complete information within 15 days, the matter reached the CIC following non-compliance. In its earlier proceedings, the Commission held that failure to provide a reply under Section 7(1) amounted to a deemed refusal, while failure to comply with the FAA's order constituted a gross violation of the RTI Act.
The CIC had also directed the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken under Section 20 and to furnish a point-wise reply after examining the information sought under Section 2(f) and applicable exemptions under Section 8(1). But when the show-cause hearing was held few days back, the CPIO again remained absent.
The Commission took grave exception to the non-compliance and reiterated its directions, making it clear that this was the last opportunity to plead the case and comply with the CIC's directions. Any further non-compliance, the Commission warned, would render the CPIO liable for ex-parte imposition of maximum penalty and disciplinary action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act.
The Jammu Municipal Corporation case presents a different but equally revealing facet.
The applicant had sought copies of attendance registers maintained by NGOs for Safai Karamcharies working in Wards 23 and 23-A from 2006 to 2012. The CPIO initially stated that the record pertaining to 2006, being 18 years old, was not traceable at present and would be supplied if and when traced.
The appellant pointed out that the request covered records up to 2012 and sought the available records for other years. The FAA and Joint Commissioner subsequently directed the CPIO to provide the desired information as per record available.
The CPIO later reported that the concerned Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor had stated that the records were 18 years old and hence not traceable. The CIC, however, found that the CPIO and FAA had failed to appreciate another crucial aspect of the RTI application-that the information sought entails the personal information of third parties and ought to have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Though the CIC declined penal action yet it directed the JMC PIO to submit a written explanation for prima-facie disregarding the hearing notice by remaining absent from the proceedings without any advance prayer for leave.
The Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu matter has raised equally serious concerns. The RTI sought details of fards issued by Tehsildar Bahu, construction on Khasra No. 1149 at Chowadhi and action taken on a court order directing status quo. The CIC found that the CPIO had failed to provide a proper point-wise reply and that the documents relied upon did not establish compliance.
It further observed apparent shifting of onus to the Tehsildar Bahu and said the conduct suggested a lackadaisical approach and a prima-facie intent of misleading the Commission by withholding the facts of the case.

Sensitive CCTV footage can't be directly shared under RTI: Allahabad High Court

India Today: Lucknow: Friday, 4^th September 2026.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that sensitive CCTV footage cannot be handed over directly under the RTI Act. It said applicants can seek preservation and production of the recording only through a competent court or forum.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that sensitive CCTV footage cannot be handed over directly under the RTI Act.

The Allahabad High Court has held that CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be directly disclosed to an applicant if it contains sensitive information and falls within the exemptions under the law. The court said such footage may be protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
At the same time, the Lucknow bench clarified that a person can seek preservation of such footage by filing a complaint before an appropriate court or competent commission. The concerned forum can then order the CCTV recording to be preserved and summon it for examination, if required.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices Shekhar B Saraf and Abhdesh Kumar Chaudhary while disposing of a writ petition filed by Shobhit Kashyap.
Kashyap had filed an RTI application on March 20, 2025, seeking various information, including complete CCTV footage. He also sought the imposition of the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on the official concerned for allegedly failing to provide the information, besides compensation for the harassment he claimed to have suffered.
During the hearing, the State Information Commission told the court that the CCTV footage contained sensitive information and could not be disclosed directly to Kashyap under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
However, it said the footage could be made available if a court or competent commission directed its production.
Kashyap had relied on a Supreme Court judgment to contend that preservation of CCTV footage was a citizen's right.
The court noted that courts and competent commissions have the power to direct preservation of CCTV footage and call for its production. However, it observed that Kashyap had not filed any complaint before a court or commission and had sought the footage only through the RTI route.
In those circumstances, the bench held that the footage could not be supplied directly to him under the RTI Act. It clarified that if Kashyap files a complaint before an appropriate court or competent forum, that authority can order preservation of the recording and summon the original footage for examination as part of the proceedings.
The court's ruling thus draws a distinction between obtaining sensitive CCTV footage directly through an RTI application and securing its preservation and production through a judicial or other competent forum.

IFF sends Representation to the to the DGP regarding the Maharashtra State panel’s suggestions to police social media posts

IFF: Maharashtra: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.
IFF writes to the DGP of Maharashtra and files an RTI application seeking information on the particulars of the suggestions

The Sadanand Date Committee, formed under the Maharashtra government in May 2026, reportedly recommended a change to India’s criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”), to specifically cover “defamatory social media posts”, as reported by the Indian Express on 21st August 2026. This move raises eyebrows, legally speaking, because their changes reportedly veer close to reinstating the spirit of Section 66A IT Act (“66A”); a provision which was struck down by the Supreme Court in, with the timing of such recommendations being ill-perceived given as it arrives just as the government faces increased scrutiny and criticism on social media over student-led protests over exam system integrity and school quality. Concerned about the threat to free speech and constitutionally protected dissent, IFF sent a representation to Shri Sadanand Date, DGP, Maharashtra, and filed an RTI with the department requesting the text of the Government Resolution, draft text of proposed amendment, and the safeguards the Committee is considering to prevent a repeat of 66A’s unconstitutionality.
Background 
In May 2026, The Indian Express, The Mumbai Mirror, and The Free Press Journal reported about Maharashtrian Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis expressing interest in the Maharashtra Assembly, about constituting a committee headed by Director-General of Police (“DGP”), Sadanand Date, to study legal provisions and suggest amendment to deal effectively with cases of social media defamation, stating “There is a growing trend of using social media platforms to defame people without any evidence or proof. All kinds of people are facing this, especially women. So a committee will be formed under the DGP. Their recommendations will be taken”. In August 2026, The Indian Express reported on the Sadanand Date Committee’s (“the Committee”) panel decision recommending a change to the BNS directly, since as the Indian Express’ source expressed, “it will be vetted at multiple levels and have a stronger footing if challenged in court, as compared to just amending the state law”; with the larger recommendation reportedly pointing towards reinstating the spirit of Section 66A itself. 
Before it was repealed, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was a law which criminalized “Any person who sends, by means of a computer resources or a communication device…”, any information considered “grossly offensive”, knowingly false information to cause “annoyance, inconvenience”, with an imprisonment for a term extendable to three years, plus a fine. 66A was infamously misused in both personal and political contexts; with the constitutionality of such a provision was challenged and brought to court after an incident in 2012; wherein the Mumbai Police apprehend two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, for posting a lambasted remark on Facebook against a then-imposed bandh imposed in the wake of a prominent politician’s death. The girls were later released, however, their apprehension was widely criticised across the country, spurring multiple petitions challenging 66A’s constitutionality and its violation of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Chief among these was the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shrey Singhal, a then Delhi-based law student, arguing that 66A was vaguely phrased, violative of Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.
In the ensuing landmark judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (“Shreya Singhal”), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional, resting on the following findings:

1. Vagueness and overbreadth, due to expressions like “grossly offensive”, “annoyance” were incapable of any legal meaning, and highly subjective. It was a criminal provision which failed to give citizens fair notice of what speech was prohibited.
2. Chilling effect on free speech, since it resulted in citizens potentially self-policing and restricting themselves to avoid even permissible speech, out of fear of prosecution. 
3. Article 19(2) already exhaustively laid down eight grounds on restrictions to freedom of speech; which made recourse to free-standing judicial/legislative invented ground on restraint on speech unnecessary.
4. Advocacy not being tantamount to incitement, because the former is protected under Article 19(1)(a).

Further, Section 66A was itself declared void ab initio in 2015, yet never got fully purged from the criminal justice system. In IFF’s 2018 working paper, “Section 66A and Other Legal Zombies”, documented police stations and lower courts keeping on still registering and prosecuting cases under this dead provision, years after Shreya Singhal; largely because the judgement never really got systematically disseminated to law enforcement. This prompted the People's Union For Civil Liberties (“PUCL”), the original petitioner, to return to the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking directions on actual dissemination of the knowledge about the struck down provision. To track the scale of the issue, IFF and CivicDataLab launched the Zombie Tracker in January 2021, which is a public database of prosecutions which still happened to invoke Section 66A. As of last database update (15.02.2020), the Tracker recorded 1,307 fresh cases registered after Shreya Singhal, 570 still pending, and 104 which reached judgement. A subsequent All-India status report, which was placed on record by the Union Government counsel before the Supreme Court on 12.10.2022 in PUCL v. UOI (MA No. 901 of 2021 in WP(Cr) No. 199 of 2013) confirmed that this 66A backlog’s existence persisted well beyond the Tracker’s own cut off date.
The lesson therein for the Committee is that even a provision which already has been unanimously, unambiguously invalidated by the Supreme Court is still being weaponised against citizens, without efforts for correction. A “social media defamation” provision which just happens to be worded differently, and might be similarly vague, would risk years of continued prosecution even after the courts strike it down.
In a similar vein, Kerala in 2020 had a similar experience with Section 118A of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 which criminalized communication intended to “threaten, abuse, humiliate, or defame” a person, making it a cognizable and bailable offence, carrying imprisonment of up to three years. It was justified publicly on the grounds of “curbing cyberbullying and misinformation” but due to public backlash of it being a resurrection of Section 66A IT Act, the Kerala Government rightfully repealed the provision within a week. 
Kerala is not the only precedent in this regard. July 2025 saw Karnataka’s draft Fake News Bill propose a “Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority” (which IFF has previously talked about) with penalties up to seven years imprisonment, and Rs 10 Lakh fines for offences built around undefined terms like “disrespect to culture”. IFF’s submission on that Bill asked the Karnataka Government to drop the criminal provisions therein instead pursuing narrowly tailored, rights respecting civil and administrative measures. 
Read together, a clear pattern emerges from the post-Shreya Singhal era’s Kerala and Karnataka examples: whatever the label, be it “cyberbullying”, “misinformation”, “fake news”, or now, “social media defamation”, any such easily invoked, vaguely worded, executively administrated route to restrict online speech has resurfaced in some permutation or variation in India various times since Shreya Singhal; and has been always struck down, or repealed.
Lastly, defamation in India isn’t an unprosecuted activity either; with Section 356 of the BNS defining defamation as the making or publication of “… any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person…”. This definition is technologically neutral, applied with equal force to a statement printed in a newspaper, versus spoken at a public meeting, versus posted on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter/X. Section 356 also carries ten statutorily built-in exceptions: public good, good-faith opinion on conduct of a public servant, and many others, all of them balancing the right to reputable under Article 21 against the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The premise which moulds the Committee’s reported recommendation (that a “legal vacuum” exists in respect of online defamatory content) doesn’t withstand scrutiny, when put up against the text of Section 356 of the BNS. What appears to be sought is the creation of a new, lower-threshold, more easily invoked and criminalized route specifically targeting online speech; which brings the Sadanand Date Committee’s proposal squarely within constitutional infirmities which led the Supreme Court to strike down Section 66A of the IT Act, 11 years ago in Shreya Singhal.
Analysis 
RTI disclosures reported by The Indian Express on 18th August 2026 revealed that the Union Government issued nearly 1.95 Lakh blocking orders to Instagram / Facebook / Youtube between March and July 2026 alone. The surge is reported and commonly understood to coincide directly with the period of the student-led protests against examination system irregularities at Jantar Mantar, Delhi. Under IT Act, the Sahyog portal currently operates without procedural safeguards laid down in Shreya Singhal, and is itself the subject of ongoing litigation before the courts on these grounds.
This also comes at a time when India’s press freedom index, academic freedom index, etc indicators have been at their most rapid decline in decades; with India ranking 157th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom index 2026, and in the bottom 10-20% of 179 countries in the Academic Freedom Index 2026, published by the V-Dem Institute. We cite these indices not for their precise ordinal rank (which is contestable, contested, and always debated over), but only for the consistent and convergent direction of travel they document across the decades, across independent, methodologically distinct international indices. The Committee's proposal risks accelerating, rather than arresting such a downward trajectory.
In such a climate, unstructured public criticism on social media, for a great many citizens, is close to the only avenue left, which constitutes a large part of citizen’s civic and democratic speech participation. Young citizens in particular have turned to social media as their primary forum for expressing frustration with the state of governance, examinations, employment, and public services. Further, such expression many times happens to be an unavoidable feature of unmediated mass public discourse in every genuine democracy. It is not, by itself, a constitutionally sufficient reason to criminalize it beyond the well-settled boundaries of defamation, incitement, and the other Article 19(2) grounds. The words of the Supreme Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, 2021, are apt in this context:
"India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen’s rights; they State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 12
include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India. At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the state authorities turn a blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied – or delayed. This is exactly what appears to have happened in this case."
Any broadened, more easily invoked criminal offence (akin to the stuck down 66A) would risk capturing and fritzing away exactly this category of legitimate democratic expression, right at a moment when the space for its other outlets is already visibly narrowing.
Action 
IFF wishes to be clear, we believe that the defamation issue has uncontroversially already been settled by constitutional law, and has adequate measles under the BNS. IFF has filed a representation to the office of the DGP of Maharashtra, Shri Sadanand Date, and also filed an RTI request to the department. In our official representation, we submitted the following recommendations, respectfully urging the Committee to:

1. Decline to recommend a state-specific amendment for “social media defamation”; on the ground that Section 356 BNS already comprehensively governs that field, in a manner technologically neutral and constitutionally balanced
2. As an alternative, should the Committee still consider some legislative response necessary, such a legislative response recommendation should not lower the existing threshold of culpability, should not alter the non-cognizable character of the offence, and should not introduce any term or standard broader or vaguer than the language which is already upheld in Section 356 BNS
3. Practice transparency, by making public and subject to genuine pre-legislative consultation for the Committee’s final report, precise text of proposed amendment, and also the “safeguards against misuse” referred to in press reports, alongside any legal opinion obtained from the Advocate General of Maharashtra. This would be consistent with the Union Government’s own Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014. and
4. In formulating any recommendation, expressly record and kindly have regard for the cumulative empirical context set out in Part D of the representation letter, pertaining to the current political and civil-liberties climate. This includes: current scale of content-restriction activity, trajectories reflected in independent press-freedom and academic freedom indices, etc.

This post has been drafted with great assistance from R. Aditya, Policy Intern at IFF.
Important Links

1. IFF’s Representation to the Office of the DGP of Maharashtra [Link] 
2. RTI Request filed on 24.08.2026 to the Home Department of the Maharashtra Government [Link]
3. IFF and CivicDataLab, Zombie Tracker [Link]

J&K RTI Portal Logs 65,243 Applications In 19 Months

Kashmir Observer: Jammu: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.

The online RTI portal for Jammu and Kashmir has received more than 65,000 RTI applications and 9,000 first appeals in 19 months since its launch, highlighting the increasing use of online mechanisms by citizens across the Union territory for accessing information, officials said.
The figures were disclosed by the General Administration Department (GAD) in response to an RTI application filed by Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma.
According to the official reply issued on August 27, the J&K RTI online portal was officially launched on January 10, 2025, to facilitate citizens in filing Right to Information (RTI) applications online.
“According to the available records, the portal received 65,243 RTI applications between January 10, 2025, and August 26, 2026,” the GAD said, adding that 9,033 first appeals were also received during the same period.
The J&K portal was launched by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in 2025 whereas the Central online portal has been operational since 2013.
On queries about the number of public authorities, central public information officers (CPIOs) and first appellate authorities onboarded on the J&K portal, the GAD said the applications are transferred to the National Informatics Centre (NIC), J&K, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for furnishing the requisite information.
The department said the procedure for onboarding public authorities, CPIOs or first appellate authorities is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The GAD said a list of public authorities and details of nodal officers are available on the RTI portal.
Sharma said the substantial number of applications received within a relatively short period highlighted the increasing reliance of citizens on the online RTI system.
Read Also Delhi HC Rejects Plea to Bring RGF Under RTI RTI Exposes Oversight Gaps in ₹1.25 Crore Kashmir Beautification Project
He demanded the inclusion of more public authorities on the RTI portal, including officials at the district, tehsil and block levels.
Sharma cited the example of the education department and said while PIOs at the directorate level in both Kashmir and Jammu divisions are available on the RTI portal, the offices of chief education officers are unavailable.
He said the same is the case with the district offices of the police department and the rural development department.
“The GAD must ensure a clear, transparent policy for onboarding new authorities instead of giving vague replies or transferring queries to the NIC,” Sharma said.
He also appealed to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to intervene and expedite the process, especially for grassroots-level offices, so that the common man can benefit from the transparency promised by the RTI Act.

MDU ex-VC Prof Rajbir’s 2 official cars clocked 3.5 lakh km in 7 years: RTI reply

Times of India: Rohtak: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.
Two official vehicles used by Rohtak’s Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) former vice chancellor Professor Rajbir Singh covered more than 3.5 lakh kilometres over nearly seven years, according to information furnished by the university under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The information was provided by MDU in response to an RTI application filed by activist Jaipal Dhankar, who has alleged irregularities in the use of the university vehicles and sought a vigilance inquiry into the matter.
According to the university’s reply, Singh used the two official vehicles from January 7, 2019, when he was appointed temporary vice-chancellor, until February 20, 2026, when his second consecutive term ended. The two vehicles together recorded an average travel of around 135 km a day during the period.
Singh served as temporary VC from January 2019 to February 2020 while also holding the charge of Vice-Chancellor of Dada Lakhmi Chand State University of Performing and Visual Arts. He subsequently served two consecutive three-year terms as MDU VC from February 21, 2020, to February 20, 2026.
Dhankar has questioned several entries in the vehicle logbooks, claiming that the distances recorded for some journeys were substantially higher than the usual road distance between the destinations.
For instance, the normal round-trip distance between Rohtak and Panchkula is around 456 km, while the MDU vehicle logbook recorded 684 km for a journey on July 2, 2020. Another journey on the same route on August 25, 2020, was recorded at 720 km.
Similarly, the round-trip distance between Rohtak and Gurugram is around 160 km, whereas the logbook showed 288 km for a journey on April 3, 2021.
In another instance, a Rohtak-Jind journey on June 22, 2021, was recorded at 243 km, despite the usual round-trip distance between the two cities being around 136 km. The entry also mentioned local travel in Jind.
Likewise, the round-trip distance between Rohtak and Narnaul in Mahendragarh district is around 260 km, while the vehicle logbook recorded 360 km.
Dhankar said the discrepancies warranted a detailed scrutiny of the vehicle logbooks, route details and official travel records.
When contacted by TOI, Prof Singh dismissed the allegations and said all procedures had been followed as per the rules. “Everything was done as per rules. We followed due procedural law,” he said.

Gurugram's celebrated 'demolition man' RS Batth fined Rs 25,000 for 4-year RTI stonewalling : Sumedha Sharma

The Tribune: Gurgaon: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
The Commission has also recommended to send Batth for training at Haryana Institute of Public Administration to sensitise him on statutory compliance, institutional discipline

R S Batth, the DTP (Enforcement) official who has emerged as the celebrated face of GMDA’s demolition drives against encroachment in Gurugram, has been fined Rs 25,000 by the Haryana State Information Commission for a four-year delay in furnishing information under the RTI Act.
Beyond the fine, the Commission has also recommended under Section 25(5) that the Additional Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, send Batth for training at the Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) to sensitise him on statutory compliance and institutional discipline.
In the orders, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura held that Batth then SPIO-cum-District Town Planner (HQ) at the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, and now posted at GMDA had “persistently” failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and repeatedly skipped hearings despite being issued a show-cause notice as far back as August 2023.
The penalty stems from an RTI application filed on January 4, 2022, seeking details of the rules, policies and guidelines governing part-occupation and occupation certificates for group housing licences sanctioned between 2007 and 2016. The Commission had first directed complete, point-wise information to be furnished within two weeks on July 13, 2023, a direction Batth did not comply with, prompting the show-cause notice.
In his written reply, Batth had argued that relevant Acts, Rules and the Haryana Building Code 2017 were available on the department’s website. The Commission rejected this explanation as “fundamentally misconceived,” holding that an SPIO “cannot substitute a general reference to statutes, rules or a departmental website for a reasoned and point-wise response” to information specifically sought.
Calling the four-year delay “extraordinary” and citing Batth’s repeated non-appearance despite specific orders requiring his presence, the Commission invoked Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to impose the penalty, to be recovered from his salary or, if applicable, his pension.
The Commission has separately directed that appellant be allowed to inspect records pertaining to the disputed information within a month, with the concerned SPIOs required to file a compliance report within 45 days.

164 government healthcare institutions in southern Tamil Nadu lack STPs: RTI

DT Next: Madurai: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
Many of these hospitals are discharging untreated waste, including biomedical waste, to rivers and other waterbodies, alleges petitioner

As many as 164 government hospitals in 10 districts in south Tamil Nadu, including government medical colleges, do not have functioning waste treatment plants, revealed information obtained under RTI.
Based on a public interest litigation that alleged that many of these hospitals are discharging untreated waste, including biomedical waste, to rivers and other waterbodies, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the State government and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to file a report on the status of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) in government healthcare institutions in southern Tamil Nadu.
When the case came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, the petitioner, R Manibharathi, an advocate from Madurai, cited the RTI information, which revealed that 164 government healthcare institutions in Thoothukudi, Kanniyakumari, Ramanathapuram, Tenkasi, Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli, Dindigul, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, and Dharmapuri were listed as functioning without STPs.
The list covers Government Medical College Hospitals, Government Hospitals, District Headquarters Hospitals, Taluk Hospitals, Urban/Upgraded Primary Health Centres, and Primary Health Centres.
In the case of Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, one of the largest tertiary-care government hospitals in southern Tamil Nadu, though an STP had been installed, it was not functioning properly due to non-payment of electricity bills, said the petitioner, adding that untreated sewage was consequently being discharged into the Vaigai river.
The Government Medical College Hospital in Thoothukudi does not have an STP facility, according to the petitioner. He also informed the court that several hospitals, including Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, had not responded to the RTI applications.
Biomedical waste generated in hospitals, including pathological waste, microbiological waste, blood-contaminated materials, operation theatre waste, laboratory waste, discarded medicines, human tissues, body organs, dressings, sharps, contaminated plastics, liquid biomedical waste, blood, saliva, body fluids, and other infectious materials, is inherently hazardous, the petitioner pointed out, adding that if such waste is handled strictly in accordance with scientific standards prescribed under law, it poses serious risks of spreading infectious diseases, contaminating groundwater, damaging the ecosystem, and endangering the lives of hospital staff, patients, sanitation workers, and the general public.
The petitioner cited Rule 4 of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, which imposes a statutory obligation on every occupier of a healthcare facility to ensure that biomedical waste is handled without any adverse effect on human health or the environment.
The Rule also mandates segregation of waste at source, barcoding, pre-treatment wherever necessary, scientific treatment of liquid biomedical waste, and disposal through authorised common biomedical waste treatment facilities.
The Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, one of the largest tertiary-care government hospitals in southern Tamil Nadu, has an STP, but it was not functioning properly due to non-payment of electricity bills, and untreated sewage was being discharged into the Vaigai river, said the PIL
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage and trade effluents into streams, wells, sewers or land. However, several government hospitals were violating these provisions, the petitioner alleged.
The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, which, he submitted, mandated institutions discharging effluents to have functional treatment plants.
He sought directions to the State government to install ETPs in all government healthcare institutions, and also periodic inspections and publication of inspection and maintenance records.
Recording the submissions, the court directed the respondents to file a status report and posted the case for further hearing on October 8.

Access fee code change adds to RTI woes : Rashidul Hasan

Daily-Sun.com: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
Information seekers have been left without effective redress against public offices denying access to information for the past two years, while a change in the economic code for information access fees has added a fresh layer of difficulty.

The Information Commission has been without two commissioners and a chief commissioner since the fall of the Awami League government, leaving complaints from information seekers unheard.
They are now facing further harassment because banks are not accepting fees under the old economic code, while some public offices are refusing receipts generated using the new code.
The online A Challan system has also made fee payment difficult, with many users unable to find the information access fee option, creating further problems for those seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Liton Kumar Pramanik, public relations officer of the Information Commission, said 845 complaints had been received from information seekers as of 30 August.
“But there has been no hearing on the complaints since August 2024,” he said, leaving the grievances unresolved.
A public office RTI section official told the Daily Sun, “We are facing a problem as we are not notified by the Information Commission about the code change issue. Besides, many come to us with the allegation that banks are not receiving the code number.”
RTI applicants had faced the problem of a changed economic code for the information access fee for about a year, but the Information Commission had not informed RTI offices through any letter about the change.
As a result, banks sometimes refuse to accept the fee through the offline system, while RTI sections of public offices refuse to accept receipts generated through the online A Challan system.
Finance Division officials said the A Challan system is being maintained under the Strengthening Public Finance Management System project.
Information Commission Deputy Director (Administration and Finance) Healal Ahmed said many people had complained that they could not deposit the fee.
“Many people come to us with the complaints that they cannot deposit money. They allege that A Challan system keeps the economic code inaccessible to the public. We had once written to the ministry regarding the matter,” he said.
Saiful Masum, a Dhaka-based journalist and regular user of the right to information, said he had faced difficulties at banks while submitting the information access fee.
“I faced a problem in banks when submitting the information access fee. They are in a fix regarding which code to use. When I first deposited money using the new code, one public office denied receiving my deposit receipt,” he said.
He said the rate of information delivery had now declined.
Hamidul Islam Hillol, an RTI activist working at Media Resources Development Initiative, said the lack of accountability had discouraged information seekers.
“The RTI officers know there is no scope for getting redress regarding deprivation of information and they don’t have to face any accountability. As a result, the rate of information delivery has declined. As a result information seekers are getting demoralized to apply for information,” he said.
He added, “The government is not appointing the commissioners, which means that they don’t want to face public scrutiny through sharing the information. They don’t want transparency and accountability.”
Complex fee submission system
Information seekers have to deposit the access fee through the A Challan system, maintained under the Strengthening Public Financial Management Program to Enable Service Delivery Project.
RTI activists said they could not find the information access fee code on the website. Hillol said they had formally applied to the government to keep the code operative.
Programme Executive and Coordinator (Joint Secretary) of the SPFMS programme under the Finance Division Muhammad Anisuzzaman said this was not the case.
Zoabyer Ahamed, a junior consultant of the project, said confusion over the missing code arose because the system has two versions – one for official use and another for public use.
“When people search, they mostly get the official-purpose system,” he said.
“We run two versions for a challan; one is general and another training version. The training version is for official use has no access fee code, but when one searches a challan, the training version comes first. We know it; we are trying to ensure the code in the training version also. Google promotes the official version and we are trying to make the public version visible,” he said.
He said verification of identity through NID and birth registration had been disabled because checkers frequently attack the site.
“Anyone can go forward with just writing his name and an identification number,” he said.

Delhi women avail 8.25 crore free bus rides in 4 months, RTI data reveals

India Today: New Delhi: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
The RTI response puts the estimated average number of women passengers travelling daily in DTC buses that month at 6.85 lakh, while the total number of free rides recorded during July stood at 212.23 lakh.

July saw the highest number of free journeys, at more than 2.12 crore, closely followed by April at over 2.11 crore. (Representative image)

Delhi’s women commuters availed 8.25 crore free bus rides between April and July 2026, underlining the sheer scale of the city’s women-only free travel benefit as the Delhi government prepares to shift the scheme from paper tickets to a digital smart-card system.
According to data provided by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, women made 8.25 crore, free journeys during the four-month period. The numbers offer a glimpse into how deeply the free bus travel scheme has become woven into the daily commute of women across the capital.
The monthly figures remained consistently high. Women availed 211.45 lakh free rides in April, 202.80 lakh in May, 199.12 lakh in June and 212.23 lakh in July. July saw the highest number of free journeys, at more than 2.12 crore, closely followed by April at over 2.11 crore.
The July figures also show the scale of daily usage. The RTI response puts the estimated average number of women passengers travelling daily in DTC buses that month at 6.85 lakh, while the total number of free rides recorded during July stood at 212.23 lakh.
The massive usage comes at a significant transition point for Delhi’s flagship women’s bus travel scheme. The government is replacing the familiar paper Pink Tickets with the Pink Saheli Smart Card, an NCMC-based digital card for eligible women residents of Delhi.
The new system was expected to become mandatory from August 31. However, the Delhi government has now extended the existing Pink Ticket facility until September 17, allowing women to continue availing free travel while the transition to the smart-card system takes place.
Transport Minister Pankaj Singh announced the extension on Monday. The move means women commuters will get additional time to shift from paper tickets to the new digital system.
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta had launched the Pink Saheli scheme as the government’s next phase of the women’s free bus travel programme. The digital system is aimed at making the scheme more transparent, efficient and trackable, while replacing the manual distribution of paper tickets inside buses.

Karnataka High Court Allows Villa Buyer To Place RTI Records In Award Challenge Over Occupancy Certificate : By - Shivani PS

Live Law Biz: Bangalore: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.

The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
The dispute arose from sale and construction agreements between Krishnamani and Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. for a residential villa. The developer was required to complete construction by December 2015.
Krishnamani alleged that despite paying 80% of the purchase consideration by March 2014, the construction was delayed and the villa's built-up area was 490 square feet less than agreed.
The arbitrator rejected Krishnamani's claim for delay compensation in an award dated 12 October 2021, relying on an occupancy certificate dated 27 April 2017, stated to have been issued by the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat. Krishnamani subsequently sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In a response dated 14 February 2022, the authorities stated that the requested information concerning the occupancy certificate was not available in the Panchayat's records.
A further reply dated 7 December 2023 referred to a 15 May 2023 inspection report, which indicated that the document relied upon as the occupancy certificate had not been issued according to the Panchayat's records.
Krishnamani had challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 23 August 2022, seeking its partial setting aside on the ground that it was against India's public policy and vitiated by fraud. He later sought to place the RTI material and related official documents before the Section 34 Court.
The Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the request on 16 September 2025, holding that following the 2019 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court could consider only material forming part of the arbitral record.
The amendment to Section 34(2)(a) replaced the words “furnishes proof” with “establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal”, thereby restricting challenges under that provision to material placed before the arbitral tribunal.
Krishnamani then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He argued that the requirement that a challenge be established from the arbitral record applies to Section 34(2)(a), whereas his fraud challenge fell under Section 34(2)(b).
Lakepoint Builders opposed the petition, arguing that additional evidence cannot be introduced routinely in Section 34 proceedings and that allowing parties to improve their cases after arbitration would undermine the summary and final nature of arbitral proceedings.
The High Court held that the 2019 amendment did not impose an absolute bar on receiving additional material under Section 34(2)(b). However, such material can be received only in rare and exceptional cases where it is necessary to decide the ground raised.
The Bench found the requirement satisfied in the present case as the documents were directly connected with the occupancy certificate relied upon in the arbitral award and the allegation of fraud. It therefore set aside the 16 September 2025 order and directed that the documents be taken on record, without expressing any finding on the alleged fraud.
It further held that receiving material relating to fraud in such circumstances does not convert a Section 34 Court into an appellate court. It held:
“A Section 34 Court that receives, in a fit case, a document going to fraud is not converting itself into a Court of appeal and is not reappreciating the arbitrator's evidence. It is doing no more than the statute requires when a Clause (b) ground of fraud is raised. The safeguard against abuse lies not in a blanket refusal to look at anything outside the record, but in the strict application of the above”.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Section 34 Court to take the RTI replies and related official documents on record and proceed with the challenge expeditiously. It left Lakepoint Builders free to contest their authenticity, admissibility and evidentiary value.
Appearances for petitioner (A.R. Krishnamani): Advocate Pradeep Nayak.
Appearances for respondent (Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Nishanth A.V.

Haryana info panel calls for town planner to be trained, fines him

The Times of India: Gurgaon: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC) on Monday recommended to additional chief secretary of the department of town and country planning (DTCP) that district town planner RS Batth be sent for an “appropriate training programme”. It also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000.

HSIC has recommended the training to sensitise Batth on RTI obligations, compliance with statutory and quasi-judicial authorities, record management, public accountability and standards of conduct expected of a public servant.
According to HSIC, the direction was given after the town planner failed to provide information sought under an RTI for the last four years and repeatedly disregarded directions of the commission.
It said he should be preferably sent for the training programme at Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) or at such other institutions as the competent authority may consider appropriate.
The RTI applicant had sought information from the DTCP on the number of occupation certificates (OCs) given to group housing projects, licensed between Jan 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016. Batth was with DTCP when the RTI application was filed.
Bharat Jain, the applicant, told the commission that the department had not provided the specific information sought. Instead, it had supplied a copy of the Haryana Building Code, 2017 and referred him to the Act, rules and policies available on the department’s website. He said that it did not answer his query.
The commission had earlier directed Batth to provide complete and point-wise information within two weeks. It also issued a show-cause notice on Aug 4, 2023, after noting the delay.
The matter continued for more than four years. The commission noted that Batth repeatedly failed to appear before it despite several opportunities. It also found that he had not given a satisfactory explanation for the delay or his failure to comply with its directions.
“An SPIO (state public information officer) cannot substitute a general reference to statutes, rules or a departmental website for a reasoned and point-wise response when specific information is sought. The RTI Act does not make a citizen’s right to information dependent on the convenience or format in which a public authority maintains its records,” the commission noted.
The department eventually furnished information on different dates between 2023 and 2026.
However, the commission said subsequent disclosure did not erase the delay and thereby imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The commission has also given Jain a final opportunity to inspect records relating to four disputed points of his RTI and obtain copies of permissible documents and asked the department to submit a compliance report within 45 days.
The competent authority has further been asked to examine whether any other official contributed to the delay or non-compliance and consider appropriate action under service rules.