2 RTI activists held for bid to extort ₹15 lakh from Thane school

Hindustan Times: Thane: Sunday, June 28, 2026.
Two RTI activists were arrested for allegedly extorting ₹15 lakh from a school official by threatening to report building violations.

Two Right to Information (RTI) activists were arrested for allegedly attempting to extort ₹15 lakh from the administrative officer of a school by threatening the management with demolition action.
The Thane crime branch’s Anti-Extortion Cell arrested the accused on Thursday. Police said the duo allegedly filed false complaints with the Thane Municipal Corporation claiming the school building of St Xavier’s High School and Junior College on Ghodbunder Road was unauthorised and demanded money to withdraw them.
The arrested men were identified as Pramod Chandrakant Pardeshi alias Rajveer Rajput, 46, an advertising hoarding fabricator from Naupada, and Narayan Omprakash Sharma, 38, a private firm employee from Srinagar in Thane.
Police said the complainant, Birbal Govinda Bandgar, 50, the school’s administrative officer, approached the AEC alleging that the duo initially demanded ₹25 lakh to withdraw the complaints before agreeing to accept ₹15 lakh.
Senior inspector Shailesh Salvi of the AEC said the allegations were verified before a trap was laid at Ravi Compound in Pachpakhadi on Thursday afternoon.
“As soon as Rajput and Sharma accepted ₹15 lakh from Bandgar, the AEC team caught them,” Salvi said, adding that the operation was led by assistant police inspector Bhushan Kapdnis.
The accused were produced before a local court, which remanded them to police custody till June 29.
Based on Bandgar’s complaint, Naupada police have registered an FIR against the duo under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Indian passport holders abroad treated as citizens for using RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, June 28, 2026.
Amid the ongoing debate on whether passport is a conclusive proof of citizenship or just a travel document, records of interministerial deliberations in 2010 over who can avail of Right to Information Act, show that MEA and MHA agreed that holders of Indian passports residing abroad can be treated as “citizens” for the purpose of availing of the benefits of information law.

It differentiated the passport holders living abroad from Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) saying that the latter two categories cannot take recourse to RTI.
The issue of citizenship on RTI applicant was considered by govt as representation was filed in the govt by US-based NRIs who wrote a letter to then PM Manmohan Singh to “recognise the legitimate desire of Indian living abroad to exercise their franchise and to have a voice in the governance of India”.
The discussion among various govt departments was confined to the issue of definition of citizen under the RTI Act. The documents revealed that MEA had recognised that attempts had been made by some RTI applicants to bring OCIs under the definition “Indian citizen” for purposes of filing applications under the RTI Act.
But MEA and MHA had agreed that only Indian passport holders living/ working abroad (i.e. NRIs) can seek information under the RTI Act and OCIs are not covered under this definition. As some of the Indian RTI activists based in foreign countries faced problems in filing applications, they approached the Central Information Commission which held meetings with officials to streamline the process.
“At the hearing, MEA said that in MEA’s view, the term ‘citizens’ includes persons holding Indian passports working/ living abroad which means NRIs only. The term does not include OCIs and PIOs. As MHA is the nodal ministry in respect of the subject matters relating to citizenship, OCIs and PIOs, it is imperative to seek the views of MHA. DoPT and MOIA expressed similar views and suggested that the matter may be referred to MHA. On May 12 hearing, MEA had separately conveyed to MHA that the definition of ‘citizen’ under RTI Act would also include NRIs, not OCIs and PIOs. MEA’s views were endorsed by MHA.

RTI : Small-town eye doctor’s big-impact medical activism lands recognition

New Indian Express: Thiruvananthapuram: Saturday, 27 June 2026.
Armed with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the 62-year-old spends his early mornings peer-reviewing the Indian healthcare system itself.

Dr BabuPhoto | Express

Dr Babu K V lives a dual life. He spends most of his day examining patients at his small eye clinic in Payyannur, Kannur. This scrutiny, however, is markedly different from the activity that he wakes up to.
Armed with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the 62-year-old spends his early mornings peer-reviewing the Indian healthcare system itself. It is this life of healing and whistleblowing that has earned this lifelong rebel, who as a medical student in the 1980s kept those in power in the state on their toes, the Indian Medical Association’s ‘National Leadership Award’ for his crusade to bring transparency in medicine.
His primary weapon has been the systematic yet relentless deployment of the RTI Act. Waking up at 2am every day, Babu dedicates two to three hours to rigorous legal research and drafting before heading to the gym and opening his clinic.
Since launching a massive second spell of online RTIs in January 2022 initially targeting medical students’ stipends he has filed over 2,000 applications and subsequent appeals, a milestone likely unmatched by an Indian doctor. He has filed more than 100 RTIs tracking misleading advertisements by Patanjali alone, systematically using the legal mechanism to push for regulatory transparency and asset disclosures within the Medical Council.
Babu’s most profound battle came in 2018 when he challenged the central government’s restriction on the manufacture and sale of Oxytocin. Armed with data gathered through RTI filings, he equipped a national network of activists with evidence needed to fight the case, and together they secured a favourable judgment in the Supreme Court.
His RTI data also proved decisive in a separate SC victory, helping doctors obtain the Covid-19 compensation the government had promised. Now, his long-running fight for patients’ right to appeal against state medical council decisions is in its final stages of fulfilment.
The relentless activist has a long history of fighting powers that be. Babu’s history of defiance began during his formative years, as part of the first medical entrance batch at Kozhikode Government Medical College, followed by postgraduation at the Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi.
As a university union councillor, that he contested as a leftist independent, he was never one to stay silent. During the historic agitation by medicos, he staged fierce protests against the K Karunakaran government’s privatisation of medical colleges. By 1989, he went on a gruelling two-week hunger strike in Thiruvananthapuram to oppose the E K Nayanar government’s introduction of mixopathy.
Even within the IMA, Babu has maintained a fiercely independent voice, carving out a place that the organisation could neither ignore nor silence. To preserve the absolute freedom required for such fierce activism in an increasingly commercialised era, Babu has run an independent, single-doctor ophthalmic practice for the past 30 years. At home, he finds an understanding ally in his wife, Dr M V Bindu, assistant professor in the community medicine department at Kannur medical college hospital.
The IMA will host a ceremony on July 18 National Doctors’ Day to bestow on him the award.
Challenging Centre’s move
Babu’s most profound battle came in 2018 when he challenged the central government’s restriction on the manufacture and sale of Oxytocin. He equipped a national network of activists with evidence needed to fight the case, and together they secured a favourable judgment in the Supreme Court.

Maharashtra RTI rules amendments trigger widespread criticism, Anna Hazare threatens hunger strike : Purva Chitnis

The Print: Mumbai: Saturday, 27 June 2026.
Maharashtra govt has raised RTI application fee & charges for appeals. New rules also require applicants to upload their IDs, which critics say would make whistleblowers vulnerable.

The amendments effected by the Maharashtra government in RTI rules has triggered a wave of objections across the state, with anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare threatening to go on a hunger strike if they are not withdrawn, and some civil society members serving a legal notice on the chief secretary. 
The amendments in the RTI rules the Central Right to Information Act allows states to frame rules on certain aspects while keeping the Act’s substantive provisions intact are related to application and appeals fee hike. Also, applicants are now required to upload their photo IDs.
Anna Hazare has termed the new rules “illegal” and threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from 5 July if the Maharashtra government does not immediately withdraw. 
Hazare has written to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, saying the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, would “blunt the edge” of the RTI Act and block people’s access to information.
Hazare said the rules shift the burden onto citizens instead of fixing systemic failures. He noted that Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities, remains poorly implemented, forcing people to file applications.
Meanwhile, a legal notice has been sent by activists and former information officials such as ex-Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal and other citizens who claimed the new rules could discourage whistleblowers, journalists, information-seekers from using RTI. 
These activists say they would also move the Bombay High Court if the rules are not withdrawn within 15 days.
“These amendments are directly opposing the main law. Certain provisions don’t come under their (state government’s) purview. These provisions contradict the main Act. Hence, we have sent a notice to the government,” RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar told ThePrint.
ThePrint reached out to the state’s chief secretary (to whom the legal notice is addressed) via email for a comment, but there was no response. The report will be updated if and when there is a response.
The amendments 
Earlier this month, the Maharashtra government issued a notification amending certain provisions under the RTI Rules, 2005, with new rules under the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026. The changes would be implemented from 5 July.
Among the changes, the revised fee structure has drawn the sharpest criticism from activists. The application fee has been hiked from Rs 10 to Rs 30, photocopy charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per A4 page, and digital copies, earlier provided free of cost, will now be charged at Rs 5 per page.
Also, the fees for first and second appeals have gone to Rs 50 and Rs 100, respectively.  
Hazare said that there was no rationale or financial analysis done to increase the fee structures “RTI is not a revenue-generating law. If fees are raised after 20 years, penalties on officers who deny information should also be increased.”.
Besides, the mandatory upload of the self attested photo id along with the RTI application, which was not required earlier has also been objected to.
Activists say that this will put the life of activists and whistleblowers in danger.
Another provision includes “one subject per application’ and it imposes a 150 word limit what Hazare describes as unnecessary and burdensome and that the provision to summarily close repeat applications would block access to complete or updated information.
What other activists object to 
The legal notice sent by the activists and public intellectuals, accessed by ThePrint, says, “The cumulative effect of these provisions is to make access to information significantly more expensive and less accessible.”
The notice further states that, “Several provisions of the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026 appear to have been framed not for carrying out the provisions of the RTI Act but for restricting, discouraging and burdening the exercise of rights conferred by the Act. The cumulative effect of the Rules is to make access to information more expensive, more technical and more cumbersome than contemplated by Parliament.”
“It is a settled principle of law that delegated legislation must remain within the confines of the parent enactment and cannot override, dilute, restrict, defeat or impose substantive conditions upon rights conferred by Parliament. Rules are intended to carry out the Act and not to stifle the Act,” the notice says.
The activists have demanded these new rules be withdrawn immediately and a transparent and meaningful public consultation process involving RTI users, former information commissioners, journalists, activists, civil society members , legal experts conducted before framing new provisions or any rules.
“The government has not yet responded but just like any other government, we don’t expect them to respond to us and our next step is to go to the Bombay High Court,” said Kumbhar.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)

‘Convenient refuge’ for avoiding disclosure: CIC cautions SAIL, seeks recruitment transparency

The Print: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in two separate orders involving the Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) has called for greater transparency in recruitment processes and cautioned public authorities against denying access to record-based information under the RTI Act.
The Commission, however, accepted SAIL’s submission in one of the cases that the requested recruitment records were no longer available as they had been weeded out in accordance with the applicable record retention schedule, and found no mala fide denial of information.
The observations were made by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh in two separate cases concerning recruitment and selection processes in SAIL.
In the first case, a complainant sought details related to the Junior Officer-2018 examination, including the date of the examination, category-wise number of candidates who appeared, cut-off marks and his own marks.
The CIC said information regarding examination dates and category-wise candidate data, if available on record, would constitute information under the RTI Act and could not be denied merely by invoking Section 2(f).
“The routine and mechanical invocation of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has increasingly become a convenient refuge for avoiding disclosure rather than a legitimate statutory ground for denial,” the Commission said.
It further observed that there was “no justification” for invoking Section 2(f) to deny access to existing statistical or administrative data and deprecated the “casual resort” to the provision in cases where information sought was manifestly record-based.
The Commission also said failure to distinguish between requests seeking opinions and those seeking existing records “undermines transparency and imposes unnecessary barriers” on citizens seeking access to public records.
However, noting SAIL’s submission that the recruitment records had been weeded out as per the applicable retention schedule, the Commission found no material to establish deliberate withholding of information and declined to initiate action against the CPIO.
In the second matter, an appellant sought information relating to marks, cut-off scores and merit position in a recruitment process for the post of Operator-cum-Technician (Trainee) at SAIL’s IISCO Steel Plant in West Bengal.
While observing that the information available on record had already been provided to the appellant, the Commission stressed the need for greater openness in recruitment matters.
“The Commission notes that the need for transparency is more in the case of the appointment/recruitment process,” the order said.
Accordingly, the CIC advised SAIL to place details of all stages of recruitment in the public domain, including names of selected candidates, category-wise merit lists and marks secured by candidates, in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. PTI MHS APL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Statutory Obligations Travel With Office, Not Individual Incumbent: Karnataka High Court Rules On RTI Liability Of Successor Officers : By Agatha Shukla

Verdictum: Karnataka: Friday, 26 June 2026.
Holding that a public servant cannot ignore pending RTI proceedings inherited from a predecessor, the Court affirmed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on a BDA Secretary for continuing institutional apathy and non-representation.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court 

The Karnataka High Court has held that the office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is a statutory position rather than a personal office, meaning all associated legal obligations travel with the office regardless of changes in personnel.
The Court ruled that an incoming officer cannot escape liability for non-compliance by merely projecting historical defaults onto their predecessors, especially when a pattern of institutional neglect and non-representation continues during their own active tenure.
The facts revealed and absence of diligence, as no representative appeared on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) during successive hearings before the Commission. Taking serious note of this protracted inaction, the Commission passed an order on January 1, 2026, imposing a personal penalty of ₹25,000 on the authority and directing immediate disclosure.
Court Justice Suraj Govindaraj while dismissing a writ petition challenging the punitive actions of the State Information Commission, observed, “The office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is not a personal office but a statutory office. The obligations attached thereto travel with the office and not with the individual incumbent. Once the petitioner assumed charge as Secretary, BDA and consequently as the First Appellate Authority on 08.05.2025, he became responsible for all pending matters requiring attention within the jurisdiction of that office, including the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2”.
“A public servant assuming charge of a statutory office cannot ignore pending proceedings merely because they originated during the tenure of his predecessor. Acceptance of such a contention would result in administrative paralysis and would enable statutory obligations to be indefinitely postponed by the simple expedient of transfer of officers, a consequence wholly contrary to the object and purpose of the Right to Information Act”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Murugesh V. Charati appeared for the petitioner and Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda appeared for the respondent.
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by Respondent No. 2 on February 6, 2023, seeking certain information from the Bangalore Development Authority. Due to initial non-disclosure, the applicant filed a first appeal on March 9, 2023.
The petitioner, Shivakumar C.L., subsequently assumed charge as the Secretary of the BDA and the designated First Appellate Authority on May 8, 2025. Despite the transfer of office, the information remained un-furnished and the first appeal lay dormant. Consequently, the applicant approached the Karnataka Information Commission, which listed the second appeal for multiple hearings throughout 2025.
Upon further non-compliance, the Commission issued a show-cause notice on February 10, 2026, for initiating disciplinary proceedings, which prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Rejecting the petitioner's primary defense that the defaults occurred prior to his appointment, the Bench observed that the petitioner failed to show any bona fide efforts or entry of appearance during his tenure, and noted that his subsequent directive to subordinate staff was an ex-post facto attempt to evade consequences. The Court clarified that post-penalty compliance cannot retrospectively erase months of active statutory neglect.
“The timing of the communication assumes particular significance. If the petitioner was genuinely diligent in discharging his statutory obligations, there is no explanation as to why similar directions were not issued immediately upon his assumption of office, or at the very least after receipt of notices from the Commission. The absence of any such contemporaneous action renders the subsequent communication of little evidentiary value”, the Bench noted.
“The conduct displayed in the present matter deserves serious disapproval. Public authorities functioning under the Right to Information Act occupy a position of trust and are expected to facilitate access to information rather than obstruct it through indifference or inaction. Failure to participate in proceedings before the Commission and failure to discharge statutory obligations undermine the legislative intent of promoting transparency and accountability in governance. Such conduct cannot be lightly condoned, lest it dilute the effectiveness of the statutory regime established under the Act”, the Bench further observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or procedural infirmity in the Commission's orders. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude competent authorities from investigating the specific role of the petitioner’s predecessors and initiating separate lawful action for the delays committed prior to May 8, 2025.
Cause Title: Shivakumar C.L. v. The State Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission and Another
(Click here to download Judgment)

RTI reveals low conviction rate in cases involving serious offences heard by Udham Singh Nagar courts : Narendra Sethi

New Indian Express: Kashipur: Friday, 26 June 2026.
The sessions courts decided 150 serious cases filed under the IPC, including offences such as murder, robbery, dacoity and rape, of which convictions were recorded only in 40 cases.

The special POCSO court decided 141 cases in 2025. Convictions were recorded in only 27 cases, while 99 ended in acquittal.  Photo| IANS

Courts in Uttarakhand's Udham Singh Nagar decided a total of 9,165 criminal cases in 2025, but the conviction rate in the matters, including those involving serious offences such as POCSO, rape and murder remained at just 31 per cent, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
The data was procured by Kashipur-based (Right to Information) RTI activist and advocate Nadeem Uddin.
"I had sought details from the Directorate of Prosecution regarding convictions and acquittals in criminal cases during 2025," Nadeem Uddin told TNIE.
"The information shows that in several serious categories, the number of acquittals was much higher than convictions," he said.
As per the RTI reply, sessions courts decided 150 serious cases filed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including offences such as murder, robbery, dacoity and rape. Of these, convictions were recorded in 40 cases, while 91 cases ended in acquittal. Another 19 cases were quashed or consigned to record.
"The figures indicate that in many cases, the prosecution and police could not prove the charges before the court," Nadeem said.
The special POCSO court decided 141 cases in 2025. Convictions were recorded in only 27 cases, while 99 ended in acquittal and 15 were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate stood at 21 per cent. POCSO pendency rose from 645 cases to 692, with 188 new cases filed.
In cases under other Acts triable by sessions courts, the conviction rate was much higher at 75 per cent. A total of 542 such cases were decided in 2025, with convictions in 351 cases and acquittals in 114. Another 45 cases were quashed or consigned.
At the subordinate court level, including magistrate courts, 341 IPC cases ended in conviction, while 126 resulted in acquittal. During the same period, 537 cases were settled through compromise, and 304 were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate in these IPC matters stood at 73 per cent.
In cases under other Acts before subordinate courts, convictions were recorded in 2,064 cases, while 83 ended in acquittal. As many as 1,168 cases were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate in this category was shown as 96 per cent.
Officials noted that this category also includes challans and fine-related cases under laws such as the Motor Vehicles Act.
The RTI information also highlights pendency trends. At the beginning of 2025, 3,465 cases were pending before sessions courts in Udham Singh Nagar. By year-end, this number rose to 3,794, despite 1,021 new cases being filed during the year.
In subordinate courts, however, pendency reduced from 30,716 cases at the beginning of the year to 27,246 by year-end. During this period, 1,311 new cases were filed.
In the special SC/ST court, 14 cases were decided, with two convictions and two acquittals, while 10 were quashed or consigned. Pendency reduced from 90 to 87 cases.
The special Gangster court decided five cases, recording one conviction and three acquittals. One case was quashed or consigned.
The special NDPS court decided 117 drug-related cases, with convictions in 73 and acquittals in 14. Thirty cases were quashed or consigned. NDPS pendency increased from 1,117 cases to 1,213 by the end of 2025.

Activists serve legal notice to Maharashtra government over new RTI rules

The Times of India: Mumbai: Friday, 26 June 2026.
The controversy surrounding Maharashtra’s recently notified Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2026 has escalated with a group of prominent transparency activists and former information officials issuing a legal notice to the state government demanding that the rules be withdrawn in their entirety within 15 days.

The notice issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, on behalf of others, alleges that the new rules make the process of obtaining information “more expensive, more technical and more cumbersome” than envisaged under the central legislation. The activists said they would move the Bombay high court challenging the validity of the rules.
The move comes days after the Maharashtra government withdrew a controversial provision that would have required applicants to state the purpose for seeking information. However, activists contend that several other provisions introduced through the Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026 continue to impose barriers that are inconsistent with the spirit and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Among the key objections is the requirement that applicants submit a self-attested photo identity proof along with RTI applications. The notice contends that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act expressly states that applicants cannot be asked to provide reasons for seeking information or furnish personal details beyond those necessary for communication. The activists argue that compulsory submission of identity documents could discourage whistle-blowers, journalists, and citizens seeking information on corruption and maladministration.
The notice also challenges restrictions limiting RTI applications to a single subject and 150 words. According to the activists, such provisions could force citizens to file multiple applications and pay multiple fees to obtain information relating to a single project, contract, policy decision or government transaction. The rules have also increased the RTI application fee to Rs 30, and introduced appeal fees of Rs 50 before the first appellate authority and Rs 100 before the State Information Commission.

MP Anti-Corruption Probe Body Not an ‘Intelligence Agency’, Cannot Claim RTI Exemption: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2011 State Notification : By Saket Sourav

Law Street Journal: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.

The Supreme Court has upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, while simultaneously striking down a 2011 State Government notification that had purported to exempt the SPE wholesale from the RTI regime. The Court held that the SPE is not an “intelligence and security organisation” within the meaning of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act and, therefore, cannot constitutionally claim such exemption.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment.
The first respondent, Kamta Prasad Mishra, was serving as a Town Inspector at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, when he was implicated by the SPE, Bhopal, in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An FIR was registered on 11 April 2017, and the Home Department granted sanction for his prosecution on 20 May 2020. Seeking to understand the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction, Mishra filed an RTI application on 1 July 2020 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
The request was refused. The State Information Commission upheld the refusal on 16 December 2020, accepting the SPE’s contention that disclosure was barred by Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and by a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh under Section 24(4), which had declared the provisions of the Act inapplicable to the SPE. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, found that the investigation had been completed and a chargesheet had already been filed. Consequently, it held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was unavailable and directed the authorities to furnish the information within thirty days.
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE placed heavy reliance on the 2011 notification, contending that it operated as a blanket exclusion of the SPE from the RTI Act’s reach. This reliance prompted the Court to examine a question that the first respondent had not formally challenged: whether the notification itself was valid.
The Court held that Section 24(4) of the RTI Act permits a State Government to exempt only such organisations as qualify as “intelligence and security organisations.” The Second Schedule to the Act, which catalogues analogous Central Government-exempted bodies, includes organisations whose core functions relate to intelligence and security such as the Directorate of Enforcement, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Border Security Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the National Investigation Agency, and others.
By contrast, the SPE was constituted under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, solely to investigate offences notified under Section 3 of that Act, presently confined to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code.
The Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt, of which the SPE is the investigative arm, are likewise restricted to inquiring into “allegations” of corruption or misconduct against public servants, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. Neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE exercises any intelligence or security-related functions.
Accordingly, the Court held that the SPE could not, by any stretch of interpretation, be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” within the meaning of Section 24(4). It therefore declared that the notification dated 25 August 2011, insofar as it sought to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act’s purview, was bad in law.
The Court also noted that the Allahabad High Court had reached a similar conclusion in Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P. (decided on 2 November 2017), where it invalidated an analogous notification exempting the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt from the RTI regime.
Addressing the propriety of examining the issue suo motu, the Court considered the argument that the first respondent had never specifically challenged the 2011 notification in his writ petition before the High Court. Relying on earlier decisions, including Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, the Court held that constitutional courts possess the power to strike down subordinate legislation that is clearly inconsistent with the parent statute, even in the absence of a specific challenge. However, the State must first be afforded a fair opportunity to justify and defend the impugned law.
The Court found that this requirement had been satisfied. On 14 May 2026, it had expressed prima facie doubts regarding the notification and invited the State to clarify its position. Thereafter, on 20 May 2026, Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha Karia and Advocate General Mr. Prashant Singh addressed detailed submissions and filed written arguments on behalf of the State. The Court therefore concluded that all procedural requirements for the exercise of its suo motu powers had been duly observed.
On the issue of Section 8(1)(h), the Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that information relating to the process of granting sanction for prosecution namely, correspondence and deliberations that had already crystallised into a final decision could not be withheld on the ground that disclosure would impede an investigation that had already concluded with the filing of a chargesheet.
The Court clarified that its ruling on the 2011 notification was confined to the SPE component of the notification. The notification’s second limb, which sought to exclude the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the RTI Act’s operation, was not under challenge and was therefore left undisturbed.
Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra and Others (Citation: 2026 INSC 644).
[Read Judgment]

Eternal vigilance, RTI, and the role of citizens in democracy : Vidya Venkat

Supreme Court Observer: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.
Recalling the importance of RTI activism in light of recent comments from the top judiciary

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance…”– John Philpot Curran
Over two decades ago, when India adopted the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, it heralded a culture of citizen-led vigilance in democracy, putting an end to the colonial-era legacy of state secrecy. However, recent developments point to a shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards public scrutiny of governmental affairs.
Justice Sandeep Mehta’s recent headline-grabbing comment that “RTI activism has become a new business” is one such instance. On 1 June 2026, a Bench of Justices Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi refused anticipatory bail to activist Ramesh Kumar Behl and his aide who were monitoring a road construction project in Punjab. Referring to the appellant as a “nobody” and “so-called RTI activist”, they questioned his authority to oversee the execution of the public work programme. The Bench observed that the Central government had issued the funds for the project and will take care of its construction. Behl and his aide were accused of blocking the road and intimidating workers and the project supervisor. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier recorded a statement by the appellant’s counsel alleging that they were falsely implicated in order to protect the contractors involved in the corruption they exposed.
It is not my intention to condone acts of intimidation of public authorities and the allegations against Behl may well be true. However, for the apex court to suggest that citizen vigilance via the use of RTI or other means is per se disruptive amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Corruption in public infrastructure projects
Going by the details reported thus far, it is difficult to ascertain the exact details of the corruption alleged by Behl and whether any steps have been taken to establish their veracity. But it is no secret that public infrastructure projects in India are susceptible to financial misappropriation and contracts are often issued to those favoured by politicians. A peer-reviewed paper published in 2018 in the Journal of Development Economics uses data on 88,000 roads built under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) to document the role of political influence in allocation of construction contracts and the likelihood of such projects never being completed. Meanwhile, village-level census data revealed that PMGSY monitoring data on completed roads includes a number of entirely fictitious ones. Not only roads, but all major infrastructure projects, including private building constructions are ripe with illegalities and corrupt practices which compromise their quality. Collapse of bridges, national highways, and commercial buildings due to poor construction cost lives and pose a serious public hazard. The World Economic Forum has noted that corruption is one of the major barriers to economic development and growth in India and recommends closer monitoring of public infrastructure projects by citizens (social auditing) as an important step to ensure transparency and accountability.
Citizen vigilance: the very lifeblood of democracy
Rajasthan was among the first states to implement the state RTI legislation in 2001 prior to the law’s country-wide adoption in 2005. In 1996, the state had already opened up access to panchayat records to ordinary citizens to allow them to monitor expenses incurred on public works. During my doctoral fieldwork, I came across several instances in the State where grassroots activists and ordinary citizens successfully monitored the implementation of public works and infrastructure projects be it roads, schools, or hospitals and proactively took steps to report and curb corruption. For instance, it was using RTI data that a woman from Jawaja exposed discrepancy in the distribution of free medication at the government hospital, leading to a public audit and action against the hospital staff found guilty of misusing public funds.
Social audits have emerged as an effective tool against siphoning of state funds. Initially led by organisations like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), they were eventually institutionalised via the MNREGA programme and have been adopted by states such as Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as well.
In Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO Parivartan used data obtained through the state RTI Act to conduct social audits of the Public Distribution System, road-laying works, and the Delhi electricity board. The importance of social audits was also emphasised by the Supreme Court in 2018 while deciding a PIL matter on whether welfare measures meant for construction workers actually reached them.
RTI activism has led to several meaningful judicial interventions, bringing to light facts that are crucial for dispensing justice. The Court has repeatedly upheld its application, extending its ambit to both financial regulators as well as its own office, balancing the need for transparency and accountability with institutional independence. In 2015, it ruled that the Reserve Bank of India cannot hide all information held under it as a fiduciary as it is accountable to citizens for the management of public money. In 2019, following prolonged activism by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Court brought the CJI’s office under the RTI Act, permitting access to information on judicial appointments and declaration of assets on a case by case basis.
RTI action is no easy task
Both the RTI Act, 2005 and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 were notably adopted after the tragic death of civil engineer Satyendra Dubey in 2003.
In 2002, Dubey had exposed corruption in implementation of the ‘Golden Quadrilateral Highway Construction Project’, initiated in 2001 by then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Gunned down in 2003, the 31-year-old’s story raised a country-wide furore, drawing attention to the stakes involved in whistleblowing big money projects. Despite subsequent legal measures to encourage and protect whistleblowers, Dubey’s story rings just as relevant today as anti-corruption activism remains fraught with the risk of retaliation. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative documents nearly 500 reported attacks on RTI users since 2005. In such a scenario, the apex Court remains the last bastion of justice available for ordinary citizens to expose corruption.
Numbers counter the rhetoric
On 15 May, when Chief Justice Surya Kant likened unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, he stated that “they go on to become media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.” Accusing RTI activists of being troublemakers and adopting a dismissive attitude towards their efforts to seek accountability is a common defence adopted by public authorities against increased scrutiny.
Instead, as noted in a 2014 report, RTI activism is often a cry for attention to highlight genuine public grievances. Less than 1 per cent of RTI applications filed by citizens were of a vexatious or frivolous nature intended to harass a public authority. What’s more, the high rates of filing may be more indicative of the crumbling RTI infrastructure, defunct State-level Commissions, long pendency of requests and arguably frivolous rejections on technical grounds. At the Supreme Court, a majority of rejected requests fall under the “other” category, providing no reasoning for refusal.
Undermining the spirit of democracy
When the country’s top court discourages RTI activism, it violates the very purpose for which the Court was established: to uphold Constitutional values and the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). In 1973, the Court had observed that “Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed contents, most of them are empty vessels into which each generation must pour its contents in the light of its experience.” As Dr. Sudarsana Natchiappan notes, the attempt of the Court, therefore, should be to “expand the reach and ambit of fundamental rights by way of judicial interpretation.” To accept unquestioningly the functioning of government and to not ask questions of it or monitor its activities undermines the very spirit of citizen engagement vital for a democracy.
Vidya Venkat is a Research Fellow on the Global Research Network on Parliaments and People, a European Research Council-funded project based at SOAS University of London. Her doctoral thesis on India’s right-to-information movement won the Radcliffe Brown-Sutasoma Award from the Royal Anthropological Institute, UK for outstanding merit. She has previously worked as a journalist and communications consultant in India since 2004.

Commission seeks explanation after RTI on stray dog rescue facilities answered post death

Times of India: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.

A street dog’s death in Aligarh has drawn scrutiny from the UP-State Information Commission (UPSIC) after an RTI application seeking details of treatment and rescue facilities was answered nearly three months late, according to the complainant.
Mohd Imran Khan of Iglas, Aligarh, said the dog in his locality was ailing and he repeatedly approached the district veterinary hospital for treatment, but without result. Khan then filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the animal husbandry department on Jan 25, asking what arrangements existed for roadside animals needing urgent care.
In his RTI, Khan sought to know whether any ambulance service was available for transporting such animals, whether there was a rescue centre or a helpline, and whether any NGO or private agency was engaged on contract in Aligarh for treating injured or sick animals found on roads.
Khan said he received the requested information only on April 16, by which time the dog had died. Under the RTI Act, information is to be provided within 30 days of an application.
Aggrieved by the delay and the outcome, Khan filed a complaint before the UPSIC. During a recent hearing, information commissioner Mohammad Nadeem observed that cases involving animal distress required heightened sensitivity and issued a notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned department, seeking an explanation in the matter.
The commission has fixed the next hearing for July 27.
At the hearing, thedeputy CMO of Aligarh told the commission that Khan’s RTI application was transferred to their office on April 7 and that information was then sent to the applicant on April 16. The official said the delay occurred at the level of the department that initially received the RTI.
The RTI Act requires that if an application is to be transferred to another public authority, it should be done within five days. The commission has sought an explanation on why the transfer took substantially longer than the prescribed period.

Anna Hazare warns of mass agitation unless Maharashtra withdraws ‘RTI amendments’

The Hindu: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.
Hazare said that if the government does not scrap the amendments before July 5, he would start a nation-wide agitation

Civil rights activist Anna Hazare issued an ultimatum to the Maharashtra Government on Wednesday (June 24, 2026) calling for the withdrawal of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026. He said a meeting with the Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner in Ralegan Siddhi was “unsatisfactory”. “If they don’t withdraw the amendments and if people’s interest is jeopardised, I will hit the streets once again,” he told reporters.
Calling for a struggle against the amendments, he expressed dissatisfaction with the Maharashtra Government’s policies. “I did not get any satisfactory answers from the Government during this meeting. If the soul of the RTI Act has to be kept alive, a new committee needs to be formed immediately. This committee should consist of experts and officials who have in-depth knowledge of the Right to Information Act and who are pro-people,” he said after the meeting.
Amendments blunt RTI provisions
He had earlier written to the Maharashtra Government seeking complete withdrawal of all the amendments, adding that they weaken the spirit of the Right to Information Act and blunt its provisions. He has opposed the provisions of the amendment rules which have tripled the application fees, introduced appeals fees, and capped free information for those living Below Poverty Line. The rules mandate that one RTI query should pertain to a single subject, and the word count is limited to 150 words. It seeks mandatory revelation of identity of the applicant, removing the shield of anonymity for whistleblowers, and ban lawyers from representing the applicant at hearings. If the applicant fails to show up for the hearing, the case can be dismissed. If the applicant dies, the case will be closed.
Anna Hazare said that if the government does not act to unequivocally scrap the amendments before July 5, he will go on a hunger strike. He also threatened to start a nation-wide agitation. Mr. Hazare’s office stated that the Chief Information Commissioner informed them that he would convey the import of the talks to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who would take a final call.
Meet was ‘satisfactory’
Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande called the meeting “satisfactory”, claiming that Anna Hazare was pleased with the information given to him. “Today we met Anna Hazare and held extensive discussions on the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the State. The focus of our discussion was making the RTI regime more people-friendly with more vigorous steps on maximum suo-motu voluntary disclosure under section 4(1) of the RTI Act. My senior colleagues and SIC Pune Bench Makrand Ranade and SIC Nashik Bench Prakash Indalkar also participated and supplied disposal and filing statistics. The recently notified RTI rules were also discussed and Anna underlined the importance of suo-motu disclosure and demanded that implementation of RTI rules be put on hold. We are satisfied with our discussions with Anna,” he said.
Meanwhile, civil rights activists have raised questions about the CIC’s role. They sought to know how the information commissioner could act as a mediator between the government and civil rights activists, and how the official could hold discussions when he had no power to amend or revoke the rules.

Prominent civil rights activists to challenge Maharashtra RTI (Amendment) Rules, 2026 in court, send legal notice to govt

The Hindu: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.
How could RTI Rules be amended without prior disclosure and public consultation, ask activists

Prominent civil rights activists on Wednesday (June 24, 2026) sent a legal notice to Maharashtra government seeking a complete rollback of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026, asking how these rules could be amended without prior disclosure or public consultation. They have sought the restoration of the legal position before the rules were issued, asking for a transparent and meaningful public consultation process involving RTI users, former Information Commissioners, journalists, transparency activists, civil society organisations and legal experts before framing any fresh rules.
The legal notice has been issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal.
It claims that the provisions of the amended rules are not isolated defects. “They collectively reveal a pattern of restrictions that make access to information more expensive, more technical, more burdensome and more difficult than contemplated by Parliament. The cumulative effect of mandatory identity requirements, restrictions on applications, enhanced fees, shifting burden of proof, expanded exemptions and procedural hurdles is to move the RTI regime away from the citizen-centric framework envisaged by Parliament and towards a system that discourages rather than facilitates access to information,” the legal notice accessed by The Hindu stated.
It said that the new rules dilute, restrict, and burden the exercise of rights conferred by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), moving away from its citizen-centric framework.
The legal notice has challenged the provisions of the amended rules. They include the tripling of the application fees, introduction of new fees for appeals, and capping of free information for those living Below Poverty Line. It has mandated that one RTI query should pertain to a single subject and should limit its word count to 150 words. It seeks mandatory revelation of identity of the applicant, removing the shield of anonymity for whistleblowers, and bans having lawyers to represent the applicant during hearing. If the applicant fails to show up for the hearing, the case can be dismissed. If the applicant dies, the case will be closed.
The activists have objected to these amendments on several grounds. They include the contention that the delegated legislation exceeded authority, that there was a lack of transparency in the rule-making process, imposition of financial burden, restriction on fee exemption for Below Poverty Line persons.
Raising point-wise objections, the legal notice stated that the power given to the Commission to dismiss appeals or complaints if the complainant failed to appear during hearing, was “inconsistent with the beneficial and citizen-centric character of the RTI Act.”
“Many citizens may be unable to attend hearings for bona fide reasons. Proceedings before the Commission are intended to determine whether access to information has been lawfully denied and not to penalise citizens for procedural lapses. Appeals and complaints under the RTI Act ought ordinarily to be decided on merits. The power to dismiss proceedings for non-prosecution risks denial of substantive rights on technical grounds without adjudication of the applicant’s entitlement to information,” the notice stated.
Raising concerns about the abatement of a case on the death of an appellant, the activists have said it is equally problematic. “The mere death of an applicant does not necessarily render the issues arising in the appeal academic or infructuous. Automatic abatement, irrespective of the nature of the information sought, may result in denial of substantive rights on procedural grounds,” it said.
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “The RTI movement in India has witnessed several instances where information seekers and transparency activists have allegedly faced threats, intimidation, harassment and, in some cases, loss of life. In such circumstances, a provision providing for automatic abatement upon the death of an appellant may have the unintended consequence of permanently extinguishing proceedings relating to potentially sensitive information.”

CIC seeks written explanation from MHA CPIO over 'misplaced' RTI denial in 'Keralam' proposal case

Metro Vaartha: New Delhi: Wednesday, 24 June 2026.
Seeking written explanation from the Home Ministry CPIO over its denial to provide a copy of its response to the Kerala government's renaming proposal to an applicant, the CIC said the ministry's reliance on an RTI exemption was "erroneous or misplaced".

Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal

Earlier this year, the Union Cabinet approved the Kerala government's proposal to rename the state as "Keralam". The proposal now requires parliamentary approval before the change can take effect.
The RTI applicant had sought copies of the Kerala Assembly's resolutions passed in August 2023 and June 2024 regarding the proposed renaming of the state, besides a copy of any reply given by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) with respect to the August 2023 resolution.
According to the order, the appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) after not receiving any response to the RTI application.
During the hearing, the MHA central public information officer (CPIO) submitted that a reply to the RTI application had been provided on December 16, 2024 by invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Upon being asked to justify the exemption, the ministry submitted that the records pertained to correspondence between the MHA and the concerned state government and that the subject matter had not attained finality.
It was also submitted that the record was treated as a "confidential/secret record".
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the requests for copies of the August 2023 and June 2024 resolutions appeared to pertain to the state government concerned.
It noted that the appellant had referred to documents partially available on the website of the state assembly concerned and appeared not to have filed the request with the "concerned public authority".
However, with regard to the applicant's request for a copy of any reply given by the MHA on the August 2023 resolution, the Commission held that the denial under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act was "erroneous or misplaced".
Referring to the exemption claimed by the ministry, the CIC said that "clearly, the facts of the instant matter do not indicate a fiduciary relationship" between the respondent and the state government in respect of the information sought.
It further observed that "the CPIO was unable to justify the invocation of the same as required in terms of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act during the hearing".
In view of these observations, Goyal directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant in respect of Point 2 of the RTI application, relating to the MHA's response to the Kerala government, within two weeks.
The CIC also took exception to the delay in responding to the RTI application, observing that the CPIO had caused a deemed refusal by failing to provide a reply within the stipulated time and that the belated reply had "seemingly evaded furnishing a cogent reply" under the provisions of the RTI Act.
It directed the CPIO to submit a written explanation, along with supporting documents, on why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act.