Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Goa CM gave nod for 112m casino vessel despite CoP concerns: RTI
The Times of India: Goa: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
Chief minister Pramod Sawant ignored concerns raised by the Captain of Ports and the ports secretary while giving the green light for Delta Corp to bring a 112-metre-long offshore casino into the Mandovi river. RTI documents show that the Captain of Ports expressed misgivings about the entry of such a large vessel into the Mandovi by Delta Corp subsidiary, Delta Pleasure Cruises, and stated that it “may create a navigational hazard due to so many vessel clusters” creating a bottleneck at the position requested”.
Then ports secretary and
IAS officer P S Reddy also raised a red flag about navigational hazards. In a
file noting, Reddy said Goa lacks a policy and clear guidelines for bringing
such large vessels into inland water channels.
“As there are technical and safety issues involved, I am of the opinion that…technical feasibility needs to be conducted by technical experts to ascertain what is the maximum size of vessels that can be brought into the Zuari, the Mandovi and other Goan inland waters, bearing in mind the navigational safety of the vessels,” Reddy said.
The ports department also clearly specified that the length of vessels permitted to operate in Goan waters has been restricted to 90m, though permissions are given to shipyards to build vessels up to 120m for operations in other states or countries.
Despite the department’s concerns, Sawant said, “We may convey no objection to the applicants to proceed,” with the replacement of the older MV Royale floatel with the 112-m-long vessel.
This prompted citizens acting under the ‘Ponnjekars Against Casinos’ banner to press govt to withdraw the permissions.
“We feel that the chief minister’s approval has to be withdrawn. It is not a technical opinion and he has no right to decide on this under the Indian Ports Act. He cannot give technical decisions,” said former CCP corporator, Patricia Pinto.
Local residents said that in case of an emergency or disaster, it is the Captain of Ports who will be held responsible.
“This boat is bigger than some of the buildings in Panaji. The chief minister has given permissions against the advice and suggestions given by people with technical know-how, such as the secretary of ports and the Captain of Ports,” said AAP Goa president, Valmiki Naik.
Chief minister Pramod Sawant ignored concerns raised by the Captain of Ports and the ports secretary while giving the green light for Delta Corp to bring a 112-metre-long offshore casino into the Mandovi river. RTI documents show that the Captain of Ports expressed misgivings about the entry of such a large vessel into the Mandovi by Delta Corp subsidiary, Delta Pleasure Cruises, and stated that it “may create a navigational hazard due to so many vessel clusters” creating a bottleneck at the position requested”.
“As there are technical and safety issues involved, I am of the opinion that…technical feasibility needs to be conducted by technical experts to ascertain what is the maximum size of vessels that can be brought into the Zuari, the Mandovi and other Goan inland waters, bearing in mind the navigational safety of the vessels,” Reddy said.
The ports department also clearly specified that the length of vessels permitted to operate in Goan waters has been restricted to 90m, though permissions are given to shipyards to build vessels up to 120m for operations in other states or countries.
Despite the department’s concerns, Sawant said, “We may convey no objection to the applicants to proceed,” with the replacement of the older MV Royale floatel with the 112-m-long vessel.
This prompted citizens acting under the ‘Ponnjekars Against Casinos’ banner to press govt to withdraw the permissions.
“We feel that the chief minister’s approval has to be withdrawn. It is not a technical opinion and he has no right to decide on this under the Indian Ports Act. He cannot give technical decisions,” said former CCP corporator, Patricia Pinto.
Local residents said that in case of an emergency or disaster, it is the Captain of Ports who will be held responsible.
“This boat is bigger than some of the buildings in Panaji. The chief minister has given permissions against the advice and suggestions given by people with technical know-how, such as the secretary of ports and the Captain of Ports,” said AAP Goa president, Valmiki Naik.
RTI reply reveals SC rejected regional bench proposal; Nagpur demand resurfaces
Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
A Right to Information (RTI) query filed by a Nagpur-based lawyer has brought fresh clarity, and renewed debate, over the long-pending demand for regional benches of the Supreme Court of India.
Advocate Sundeep R. Badana
had sought details under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding discussions
and correspondence related to the establishment of regional or “cassation”
benches of the apex court under Article 130 of the Constitution.
In its official response dated April 13, 2026, the Supreme Court Registry informed that a Full Court meeting on the issue was held on February 18, 2010. During that meeting, the judges considered the Law Commission of India’s 229th Report, which had recommended dividing the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench in Delhi and cassation benches in different regions.
However, as per the RTI reply, the Full Court unanimously rejected the proposal, stating that there was “no justification” to deviate from its earlier stance. The Registry further clarified that no official correspondence has been sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the establishment of regional benches since 2014.
The disclosure has once again spotlighted the longstanding demand for a Supreme Court bench outside Delhi, particularly in Nagpur. Advocate Badana had earlier submitted a detailed representation to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, proposing structural judicia suggesting Nagpur as a potential location for a western cassation bench. However, the CJI reportedly stated that no such representation had been formally received.
The demand for a bench in Nagpur is not new. Prominent leaders including former Union Minister Hansraj Ahir, former MP Vilas Muttemwar, and former MP Vijay Darda have, in the past, advocated for such a move, citing the city’s central location and its importance as Maharashtra’s second capital.
Legal experts argue that decentralising the Supreme Court could improve access to justice, especially for litigants from distant regions who face logistical and financial challenges in approaching Delhi. In his representation, Badana highlighted what he described as a “dual crisis,” a mounting backlog of over 85,000 cases and a perceived geographical imbalance in access to the apex court.
While the RTI response provides a definitive position taken by the Supreme Court in 2010 and the absence of recent correspondence, it has also reignited discussions on judicial accessibility and the need for structural reforms in India’s highest court.
A Right to Information (RTI) query filed by a Nagpur-based lawyer has brought fresh clarity, and renewed debate, over the long-pending demand for regional benches of the Supreme Court of India.
In its official response dated April 13, 2026, the Supreme Court Registry informed that a Full Court meeting on the issue was held on February 18, 2010. During that meeting, the judges considered the Law Commission of India’s 229th Report, which had recommended dividing the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench in Delhi and cassation benches in different regions.
However, as per the RTI reply, the Full Court unanimously rejected the proposal, stating that there was “no justification” to deviate from its earlier stance. The Registry further clarified that no official correspondence has been sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the establishment of regional benches since 2014.
The disclosure has once again spotlighted the longstanding demand for a Supreme Court bench outside Delhi, particularly in Nagpur. Advocate Badana had earlier submitted a detailed representation to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, proposing structural judicia suggesting Nagpur as a potential location for a western cassation bench. However, the CJI reportedly stated that no such representation had been formally received.
The demand for a bench in Nagpur is not new. Prominent leaders including former Union Minister Hansraj Ahir, former MP Vilas Muttemwar, and former MP Vijay Darda have, in the past, advocated for such a move, citing the city’s central location and its importance as Maharashtra’s second capital.
Legal experts argue that decentralising the Supreme Court could improve access to justice, especially for litigants from distant regions who face logistical and financial challenges in approaching Delhi. In his representation, Badana highlighted what he described as a “dual crisis,” a mounting backlog of over 85,000 cases and a perceived geographical imbalance in access to the apex court.
While the RTI response provides a definitive position taken by the Supreme Court in 2010 and the absence of recent correspondence, it has also reignited discussions on judicial accessibility and the need for structural reforms in India’s highest court.
J&K: CIC fires "Show Cause Notice" to PIO as to why action not be taken u/s 20?
Cross Town News: Jammu: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
In reply to one RTI, one officer, who is topper in JKAS Batch but seems be not aware about laws & acts, which stands proved in a RTI reply wherein she had failed to provide information to an applicant on notings of her file & strange to mention here that the said topper of JKAS quoted Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act while denying the information.
First Appeal was filed
& in hearing one Legal Assistant of JDA was also present along with PIO etc
etc & declared that Sec 8(1)(b)
cannot be applied to personal information & ordered to provide the information but not provided, speaks of
case of harassment by JDA to public.
Whereas, STP of JDA denied information to applicant on his personal case by quoting Section 8(1)(j).
It is also a question on FAA for not acting on PIO for providing false information wrt to quoted sections, otherwise, which should have been read befor replying, otherwise speaks of their proved incompetence & malafide, needs actions.
Now, shockingly, a RTI applicant had sought some information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in sister concern of JDA as, Jammu Municipal Corporation, which included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable.
In a, case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses, whereas Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.
In reply to one RTI, one officer, who is topper in JKAS Batch but seems be not aware about laws & acts, which stands proved in a RTI reply wherein she had failed to provide information to an applicant on notings of her file & strange to mention here that the said topper of JKAS quoted Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act while denying the information.
Whereas, STP of JDA denied information to applicant on his personal case by quoting Section 8(1)(j).
It is also a question on FAA for not acting on PIO for providing false information wrt to quoted sections, otherwise, which should have been read befor replying, otherwise speaks of their proved incompetence & malafide, needs actions.
Now, shockingly, a RTI applicant had sought some information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in sister concern of JDA as, Jammu Municipal Corporation, which included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable.
In a, case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses, whereas Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.
Central Bank of India Deny Details on Annual Membership Fees and Expenditure
The Kanal: New Delhi: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
Central Bank of India responds to RTI query seeking details on annual membership fees and related expenditures. Clarifies non-disclosure citing commercial confidence under RTI Act 2005.
A Right to Information
(RTI) application seeking details on annual membership fees and related
expenditures has received a response from the Central Bank of India. The reply
addresses queries related to subscription payments, expenditure consolidation,
and accounting treatment while also invoking provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
for non-disclosure of certain information.
RTI Query on Membership Fees and Expenses
The RTI application was filed by Prabin Kumar Biswas, who sought detailed information regarding annual membership fees and related expenditures from the Central Bank of India. The query included a breakdown of subscription payments such as legal and professional fees, special fund contributions, technology-related charges, and expenses on consultancy or training programs. Additionally, the applicant requested details of total annual expenditure along with the specific accounting heads under which these payments were recorded.
Bank’s Response on Disclosure
The Central Bank of India stated that the information requested falls under the category of commercial confidence. It cited Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, indicating that such information cannot be disclosed as it may affect the competitive position of the institution. Therefore, the bank declined to provide detailed financial breakdowns.
Reference to RTI Act, 2005
The reply specifically mentions provisions under the RTI Act, 2005, which allow public authorities to withhold information considered commercially sensitive. The bank emphasised that disclosure is not warranted in this case due to the nature of the data requested.
Accounting and Expenditure Clarification
While the applicant had also sought clarity on total annual expenditure and accounting classifications, the response did not provide specific figures or account details. The refusal was consistent across all points raised in the RTI application.
Appeal Provision Mentioned
The response also informs the applicant about the right to file a first appeal within 30 days if dissatisfied with the reply. Contact details of the appellate authority were provided as per RTI norms.
Central Bank of India responds to RTI query seeking details on annual membership fees and related expenditures. Clarifies non-disclosure citing commercial confidence under RTI Act 2005.
RTI Query on Membership Fees and Expenses
The RTI application was filed by Prabin Kumar Biswas, who sought detailed information regarding annual membership fees and related expenditures from the Central Bank of India. The query included a breakdown of subscription payments such as legal and professional fees, special fund contributions, technology-related charges, and expenses on consultancy or training programs. Additionally, the applicant requested details of total annual expenditure along with the specific accounting heads under which these payments were recorded.
Bank’s Response on Disclosure
The Central Bank of India stated that the information requested falls under the category of commercial confidence. It cited Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, indicating that such information cannot be disclosed as it may affect the competitive position of the institution. Therefore, the bank declined to provide detailed financial breakdowns.
Reference to RTI Act, 2005
The reply specifically mentions provisions under the RTI Act, 2005, which allow public authorities to withhold information considered commercially sensitive. The bank emphasised that disclosure is not warranted in this case due to the nature of the data requested.
Accounting and Expenditure Clarification
While the applicant had also sought clarity on total annual expenditure and accounting classifications, the response did not provide specific figures or account details. The refusal was consistent across all points raised in the RTI application.
 |
| RTI reply issued by Central Bank of India citing Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 |
The response also informs the applicant about the right to file a first appeal within 30 days if dissatisfied with the reply. Contact details of the appellate authority were provided as per RTI norms.
CIC seeks clarity on contract workers' wages, questions industry promotion dep
ETLegal: New Delhi: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.
The CIC has directed the
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), under the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to furnish a revised and detailed reply on
queries related to the basis for fixing wages of contract workers at a cement
unit in Uttar Pradesh.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by the department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.
In his RTI application, the appellant had raised three specific questions. These included whether the unit is run under the central or state government rules, and which rules applied earlier when it functioned as a government factory.
He also asked, "When the price of cement produced is decided by the central government, then on what basis the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the factory is determined by the state government?"
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the cement industry "was deregulated in 1989 and delicensed in 1991 under the policy of economic liberalisation".
"Thus, the Government of India does not control cement prices, and the administration/management of the cement industry," it said, adding that this had already been conveyed to the appellant earlier.
The Commission, however, found gaps in the reply. It observed that the respondent failed to clarify "if there are any rules/guidelines/office memorandum that form the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided".
It also noted that no satisfactory response was provided on this specific aspect during the hearing.
"The respondent did not give an appropriate para-wise reply to the appellant. The respondent had provided some available factual information. However, the same does not answer all three points in consonance with the RTI Act, 2005," the Commission said.
Directing corrective action, the CIC ordered the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, "incorporating the documents/rules/guidelines/factual information with respect to the sought information" as to whether the unit is run according to the rules made by the central government or those made by the state government.
The reply should clearly address whether the unit is "run as per the rules made by the Central Government or the rules made by the State Government; the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided etc. as per the RTI Act, 2005", it said.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by the department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.
In his RTI application, the appellant had raised three specific questions. These included whether the unit is run under the central or state government rules, and which rules applied earlier when it functioned as a government factory.
He also asked, "When the price of cement produced is decided by the central government, then on what basis the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the factory is determined by the state government?"
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the cement industry "was deregulated in 1989 and delicensed in 1991 under the policy of economic liberalisation".
"Thus, the Government of India does not control cement prices, and the administration/management of the cement industry," it said, adding that this had already been conveyed to the appellant earlier.
The Commission, however, found gaps in the reply. It observed that the respondent failed to clarify "if there are any rules/guidelines/office memorandum that form the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided".
It also noted that no satisfactory response was provided on this specific aspect during the hearing.
"The respondent did not give an appropriate para-wise reply to the appellant. The respondent had provided some available factual information. However, the same does not answer all three points in consonance with the RTI Act, 2005," the Commission said.
Directing corrective action, the CIC ordered the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, "incorporating the documents/rules/guidelines/factual information with respect to the sought information" as to whether the unit is run according to the rules made by the central government or those made by the state government.
The reply should clearly address whether the unit is "run as per the rules made by the Central Government or the rules made by the State Government; the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided etc. as per the RTI Act, 2005", it said.
Monday, April 20, 2026
Rohtak PGIMS pulls up public information officers for delays in RTI replies
Tribune India: Rohtak: Monday, 20 April 2026.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications
Taking serious note of
delays and negligence in responding to RTI applications on time, the
authorities at Pandit BD Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences
(PGIMS), Rohtak, have directed all its public information officers (PIOs) to
provide timely and point-wise replies and ensure their personal presence during
RTI appeal hearings.
In an official communication issued by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Director of PGIMS, it has been observed that most PIOs of the institute were not providing specific and point-wise replies to RTI applicants.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The order further stated that delays in providing information to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) were resulting in an increase in first appeals before the First Appellate Authority and second appeals before the Haryana State Information Commission.
The authorities warned that such negligence could lead to penalties being imposed by the Commission.
The First Appellate Authority directed all PIOs to furnish specific and point-wise replies to RTI applications within the stipulated time frame.
“They either conceal/ withhold the information or do not supply the information properly. Moreover, there has been a consistent delay in providing the information to the office of the SPIO of the PGIMS with regard to various RTI applications,” reads the orders.
The order clearly stated that in case of delay or failure, the concerned PIOs would be held personally responsible and would have to bear any penalty imposed by the State Information Commission. The matter has been marked as “utmost urgent”.
In a separate office order, the institute also expressed concern that some PIOs were not attending RTI appeal hearings personally and were deputing representatives instead. According to the order, this practice was causing embarrassment during appeal proceedings and affecting the proper disposal of cases.
The authorities have now directed all PIOs to remain personally present during RTI appeal hearings and avoid taking leave on dates fixed for appeals. The order emphasized that personal attendance is necessary to ensure effective hearing and timely resolution of RTI matters.
PGIMS Director Dr SK Singhal, while confirming the development, said the move aims to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and ensure timely disposal of RTI applications at the institution.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications
In an official communication issued by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Director of PGIMS, it has been observed that most PIOs of the institute were not providing specific and point-wise replies to RTI applicants.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The order further stated that delays in providing information to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) were resulting in an increase in first appeals before the First Appellate Authority and second appeals before the Haryana State Information Commission.
The authorities warned that such negligence could lead to penalties being imposed by the Commission.
The First Appellate Authority directed all PIOs to furnish specific and point-wise replies to RTI applications within the stipulated time frame.
“They either conceal/ withhold the information or do not supply the information properly. Moreover, there has been a consistent delay in providing the information to the office of the SPIO of the PGIMS with regard to various RTI applications,” reads the orders.
The order clearly stated that in case of delay or failure, the concerned PIOs would be held personally responsible and would have to bear any penalty imposed by the State Information Commission. The matter has been marked as “utmost urgent”.
In a separate office order, the institute also expressed concern that some PIOs were not attending RTI appeal hearings personally and were deputing representatives instead. According to the order, this practice was causing embarrassment during appeal proceedings and affecting the proper disposal of cases.
The authorities have now directed all PIOs to remain personally present during RTI appeal hearings and avoid taking leave on dates fixed for appeals. The order emphasized that personal attendance is necessary to ensure effective hearing and timely resolution of RTI matters.
PGIMS Director Dr SK Singhal, while confirming the development, said the move aims to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and ensure timely disposal of RTI applications at the institution.
Is India Burying the Right to Information? The Slow Death of Transparency in India : By Dr Ranjan Solomon
Countercurrents: Article: Monday, 20 April 2026.
When India enacted the
Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005, it marked a watershed moment in
democratic governance. Born out of grassroots struggles led by ordinary
citizens—particularly rural workers demanding transparency in wage payments—the
law shifted the balance of power, however modestly, from the state to the
people. It allowed citizens to question authority, expose corruption, and
assert their right to know how they were being governed. When the right to know
is weakened, democracy itself begins to recede.
Two decades later, that transformative law stands dangerously weakened – not through outright repeal, but through a steady and deliberate process of erosion.
There is no dramatic announcement declaring the end of RTI. Instead, its dismantling is unfolding quietly through legislative dilution, institutional weakening, administrative resistance, and a growing culture of secrecy. What was once a robust instrument of accountability is increasingly being reduced to a procedural formality—where information is denied, delayed, or diluted beyond usefulness.
Privacy as Pretext: The Expanding Shield of Secrecy
One of the most significant threats to the RTI framework today arises from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. While the protection of personal data is both necessary and overdue in a digital age, its interface with the RTI Act has raised serious concerns among transparency advocates.
The DPDP Act amends Section 8 of the RTI Act, broadening the exemption for “personal information.” Earlier, the law required a balancing test: even if information was personal, it could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it. This crucial safeguard ensured that transparency was not sacrificed at the altar of privacy.
That balance has now been fundamentally altered. Public authorities can invoke privacy more broadly and, in practice, more arbitrarily, to deny information. This creates what activists describe as a “blanket exemption”—one that can be used to shield details about public officials, beneficiaries of government schemes, or decisions taken in the exercise of public power. This shift is not merely technical. It represents a deeper philosophical departure – from transparency as a democratic right to secrecy as administrative convenience.
Taming the Watchdog: Institutional Dependence
Equally troubling is the weakening of the institutions meant to uphold the RTI regime. The 2019 amendments to the RTI Act fundamentally altered the status of the Central and State Information Commissions. By granting the central government the power to determine the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, these amendments eroded the structural independence that once insulated them from executive pressure.
Previously, these commissions functioned with a degree of autonomy comparable to constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. Today, their dependence on the executive raises serious concerns about impartiality. An oversight body that relies on the government for its terms of service cannot be expected to robustly challenge that same government. The result is predictable: a gradual softening of enforcement, a reluctance to confront non-compliance, and an overall weakening of the law’s deterrent power.
Justice Delayed, Information Denied
Even where the law remains intact, its implementation is faltering under the weight of systemic neglect.
As of 2024, more than 400,000 RTI appeals and complaints are pending across India’s information commissions, according to data compiled by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan. Several commissions are operating with significant vacancies, including at senior levels, severely limiting their ability to function effectively.
For citizens seeking time-sensitive information—on land disputes, welfare entitlements, or administrative decisions—such delays render the law meaningless. An RTI response that arrives after years of waiting is not transparency; it is bureaucratic evasion.
When RTI Worked: A Glimpse of What Is Being Lost
To understand what is at stake, one must recall how powerful the RTI Act has been when allowed to function.
In the early years of its implementation, activists in Rajasthan—many associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)—used RTI applications to uncover massive irregularities in public works programmes. By accessing muster rolls and payment records, they exposed how funds meant for rural labourers were siphoned off through fake entries and ghost workers.
These disclosures led to public hearings, recovery of misappropriated funds, and greater scrutiny of local governance. More importantly, they demonstrated that transparency was not an abstract ideal—it had tangible consequences for justice and livelihood.
It is precisely this power—to expose, to question, and to hold authority accountable—that is now being systematically weakened.
From Citizen to Suspect: The Culture of “RTI-Phobia”
Alongside legal and institutional challenges, a more subtle but equally corrosive shift is taking place within the bureaucracy.
RTI applicants are increasingly viewed not as participants in democracy but as nuisances—or worse, as threats. Officials often label frequent applicants as “habitual complainants” or “blackmailers,” fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.
This phenomenon, sometimes described as “RTI-phobia,” has real consequences. Applications are more likely to be rejected, queries are interpreted narrowly, and bureaucrats adopt a defensive posture that prioritizes self-protection over public accountability.
The citizen, in effect, is recast as an adversary. Such a transformation undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower individuals—not intimidate them.
The Vanishing Deterrent: No Penalty, No Compliance
The RTI Act includes provisions for penalising officials who fail to provide information without reasonable cause. These provisions were intended to ensure compliance and deter arbitrary denial.
In practice, however, they are rarely enforced. The Central Information Commission (CIC), which has the authority to impose fines, has shown increasing reluctance to penalise errant officials. This failure to act has emboldened non-compliance, allowing public authorities to ignore RTI requests with minimal consequences.
At the same time, rejection rates have risen. Studies indicate that a significant number of RTI denials do not cite valid legal exemptions, reflecting a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. Without enforcement, the law loses its teeth. And without consequences, opacity becomes the norm.
A Warning from the Judiciary
The cumulative effect of these developments has prompted serious concern from within the legal community. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur has warned that the RTI framework could be effectively dismantled within the next five to six years if current trends continue.
This is not a prediction of formal repeal, but of functional collapse. A law need not be abolished to become irrelevant. It only needs to be ignored, weakened, and rendered ineffective.
What Is at Stake: Democracy Itself
The erosion of the RTI Act is not an isolated policy issue – it is a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Without access to information, citizens cannot question authority, journalists cannot investigate wrongdoing, and civil society cannot hold institutions to account. Corruption thrives in secrecy, and power consolidates in darkness.
In this context, the weakening of RTI signals a broader shift in governance—from openness to opacity, from participation to control. It raises a troubling question: what kind of democracy fears its own citizens knowing too much?
Democracy in the Dark
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. A democracy that restricts access to information is a democracy that fears accountability. And a democracy that fears accountability is one that risks losing its constitutional soul.
If the RTI is allowed to fade into irrelevance, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a fundamental right – hard-won through struggle – quietly erased from public life.And in that silence, democracy itself will grow dim.
Conclusion: A Legacy at Risk
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. It also stands in stark contrast to the constitutional vision articulated by P. N. Bhagwati, who, through a series of landmark judgments, laid the foundation for the right to information as an intrinsic part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Long before RTI became statutory law, it was judicially nurtured as a democratic necessity—an essential condition for informed citizenship and accountable governance.
To weaken RTI today is not merely to dilute a piece of legislation; it is to depart from that constitutional promise. If the current trajectory continues, India risks undoing decades of progressive jurisprudence that recognised transparency as the cornerstone of democracy. The right to know, once affirmed as fundamental, may survive in principle – but fade in practice.
And when that happens, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a legacy betrayed – and a democracy dimmed by the very shadows it once sought to dispel.
(Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned author- researcher-freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local/national justice., Ranjan Solomon has stayed in close solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation, and the cruel apartheid system since 1987. Ranjan Solomon can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com)
Two decades later, that transformative law stands dangerously weakened – not through outright repeal, but through a steady and deliberate process of erosion.
There is no dramatic announcement declaring the end of RTI. Instead, its dismantling is unfolding quietly through legislative dilution, institutional weakening, administrative resistance, and a growing culture of secrecy. What was once a robust instrument of accountability is increasingly being reduced to a procedural formality—where information is denied, delayed, or diluted beyond usefulness.
Privacy as Pretext: The Expanding Shield of Secrecy
One of the most significant threats to the RTI framework today arises from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. While the protection of personal data is both necessary and overdue in a digital age, its interface with the RTI Act has raised serious concerns among transparency advocates.
The DPDP Act amends Section 8 of the RTI Act, broadening the exemption for “personal information.” Earlier, the law required a balancing test: even if information was personal, it could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it. This crucial safeguard ensured that transparency was not sacrificed at the altar of privacy.
That balance has now been fundamentally altered. Public authorities can invoke privacy more broadly and, in practice, more arbitrarily, to deny information. This creates what activists describe as a “blanket exemption”—one that can be used to shield details about public officials, beneficiaries of government schemes, or decisions taken in the exercise of public power. This shift is not merely technical. It represents a deeper philosophical departure – from transparency as a democratic right to secrecy as administrative convenience.
Taming the Watchdog: Institutional Dependence
Equally troubling is the weakening of the institutions meant to uphold the RTI regime. The 2019 amendments to the RTI Act fundamentally altered the status of the Central and State Information Commissions. By granting the central government the power to determine the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, these amendments eroded the structural independence that once insulated them from executive pressure.
Previously, these commissions functioned with a degree of autonomy comparable to constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. Today, their dependence on the executive raises serious concerns about impartiality. An oversight body that relies on the government for its terms of service cannot be expected to robustly challenge that same government. The result is predictable: a gradual softening of enforcement, a reluctance to confront non-compliance, and an overall weakening of the law’s deterrent power.
Justice Delayed, Information Denied
Even where the law remains intact, its implementation is faltering under the weight of systemic neglect.
As of 2024, more than 400,000 RTI appeals and complaints are pending across India’s information commissions, according to data compiled by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan. Several commissions are operating with significant vacancies, including at senior levels, severely limiting their ability to function effectively.
For citizens seeking time-sensitive information—on land disputes, welfare entitlements, or administrative decisions—such delays render the law meaningless. An RTI response that arrives after years of waiting is not transparency; it is bureaucratic evasion.
When RTI Worked: A Glimpse of What Is Being Lost
To understand what is at stake, one must recall how powerful the RTI Act has been when allowed to function.
In the early years of its implementation, activists in Rajasthan—many associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)—used RTI applications to uncover massive irregularities in public works programmes. By accessing muster rolls and payment records, they exposed how funds meant for rural labourers were siphoned off through fake entries and ghost workers.
These disclosures led to public hearings, recovery of misappropriated funds, and greater scrutiny of local governance. More importantly, they demonstrated that transparency was not an abstract ideal—it had tangible consequences for justice and livelihood.
It is precisely this power—to expose, to question, and to hold authority accountable—that is now being systematically weakened.
From Citizen to Suspect: The Culture of “RTI-Phobia”
Alongside legal and institutional challenges, a more subtle but equally corrosive shift is taking place within the bureaucracy.
RTI applicants are increasingly viewed not as participants in democracy but as nuisances—or worse, as threats. Officials often label frequent applicants as “habitual complainants” or “blackmailers,” fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.
This phenomenon, sometimes described as “RTI-phobia,” has real consequences. Applications are more likely to be rejected, queries are interpreted narrowly, and bureaucrats adopt a defensive posture that prioritizes self-protection over public accountability.
The citizen, in effect, is recast as an adversary. Such a transformation undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower individuals—not intimidate them.
The Vanishing Deterrent: No Penalty, No Compliance
The RTI Act includes provisions for penalising officials who fail to provide information without reasonable cause. These provisions were intended to ensure compliance and deter arbitrary denial.
In practice, however, they are rarely enforced. The Central Information Commission (CIC), which has the authority to impose fines, has shown increasing reluctance to penalise errant officials. This failure to act has emboldened non-compliance, allowing public authorities to ignore RTI requests with minimal consequences.
At the same time, rejection rates have risen. Studies indicate that a significant number of RTI denials do not cite valid legal exemptions, reflecting a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. Without enforcement, the law loses its teeth. And without consequences, opacity becomes the norm.
A Warning from the Judiciary
The cumulative effect of these developments has prompted serious concern from within the legal community. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur has warned that the RTI framework could be effectively dismantled within the next five to six years if current trends continue.
This is not a prediction of formal repeal, but of functional collapse. A law need not be abolished to become irrelevant. It only needs to be ignored, weakened, and rendered ineffective.
What Is at Stake: Democracy Itself
The erosion of the RTI Act is not an isolated policy issue – it is a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Without access to information, citizens cannot question authority, journalists cannot investigate wrongdoing, and civil society cannot hold institutions to account. Corruption thrives in secrecy, and power consolidates in darkness.
In this context, the weakening of RTI signals a broader shift in governance—from openness to opacity, from participation to control. It raises a troubling question: what kind of democracy fears its own citizens knowing too much?
Democracy in the Dark
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. A democracy that restricts access to information is a democracy that fears accountability. And a democracy that fears accountability is one that risks losing its constitutional soul.
If the RTI is allowed to fade into irrelevance, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a fundamental right – hard-won through struggle – quietly erased from public life.And in that silence, democracy itself will grow dim.
Conclusion: A Legacy at Risk
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. It also stands in stark contrast to the constitutional vision articulated by P. N. Bhagwati, who, through a series of landmark judgments, laid the foundation for the right to information as an intrinsic part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Long before RTI became statutory law, it was judicially nurtured as a democratic necessity—an essential condition for informed citizenship and accountable governance.
To weaken RTI today is not merely to dilute a piece of legislation; it is to depart from that constitutional promise. If the current trajectory continues, India risks undoing decades of progressive jurisprudence that recognised transparency as the cornerstone of democracy. The right to know, once affirmed as fundamental, may survive in principle – but fade in practice.
And when that happens, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a legacy betrayed – and a democracy dimmed by the very shadows it once sought to dispel.
(Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned author- researcher-freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local/national justice., Ranjan Solomon has stayed in close solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation, and the cruel apartheid system since 1987. Ranjan Solomon can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com)
CIC flags reckless disclosure of Third Party information in J&K : Mohinder Verma
Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Monday, 20 April 2026.
In a scathing indictment of the RTI mechanism in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has found that First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) lack understanding of key provisions of the Act, particularly those safeguarding Third- Party information from disclosure.
The sharp observation came
while the Commission was adjudicating Second Appeals filed by the RTI
applicants of the J&K.
In the first case, the applicant had sought copies of vigilance clearances received from the General Administration Department (GAD) in respect of various Engineers regularised as Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers under multiple orders of the Power Development Department.
At the initial stage, the PIO had rightly informed the applicant that the information sought comes under the purview of Third Party information and could not be provided. However, when the applicant filed the First Appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that once the DPC has been concluded, the vigilance clearance or promotion orders are no more confidential documents and can be provided under RTI Act.
Accordingly, the FAA directed the PIO to provide the requisite information to the applicant. In compliance of the order of the FAA, the PIO furnished the requisite documents to the applicant. Despite this, the applicant knocked the doors of the CIC with the plea that full information was not provided.
Rejecting the FAA’s reasoning, the CIC relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal and other landmark rulings to underline the scope of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j).
Quoting the judgment, the Commission noted that professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are all personal information and are entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The CIC categorically held that the disclosure made by the department was in contravention to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act and viewed the lapse adversely. It further ruled that the FAA’s order was “per incuriam”, effectively rendering it legally unsustainable.
Issuing a clear warning, the Commission advised the First Appellate Authority to exercise due caution while ordering disclosure of information related to Third Parties in the future.
In another case, the RTI applicant had sought wide-ranging information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in Jammu Municipal Corporation. The queries included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable. However, the First Appellate Authority, while deciding the First Appeal, directed the PIO to furnish the information to the applicant.
As the PIO reiterated the stand taken in the reply furnished to the original application, the applicant knocked the doors of the Central Information Commission. During the course of Second Appeal proceedings, the PIO submitted before the transparency watchdog of the country that information pertaining to certain points has already been furnished to the applicant.
Examining the response, the CIC found that while supplying information, the respondent has disclosed copies of contracts relating to Third Party contractual employees, violating the privacy of the individuals and provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
It further observed that such disclosure was made without even following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which governs Third-Party information. The Commission categorically held that the PIO has erred in furnishing information which should have been denied under provisions of the RTI Act.
Taking a stern view of the violation, the Commission has directed the CPIO/Under Secretary, JMC to submit an explanation as to why penal action should not be initiated for breaching the provisions of the RTI Act.
In another case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, Kulgam, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. It also took exception to the absence of the PIO during the hearing without any advance prayer for leave and for disregarding the instructions issued in the notice of hearing.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses.
Significantly, the Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.
In a scathing indictment of the RTI mechanism in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has found that First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) lack understanding of key provisions of the Act, particularly those safeguarding Third- Party information from disclosure.
In the first case, the applicant had sought copies of vigilance clearances received from the General Administration Department (GAD) in respect of various Engineers regularised as Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers under multiple orders of the Power Development Department.
At the initial stage, the PIO had rightly informed the applicant that the information sought comes under the purview of Third Party information and could not be provided. However, when the applicant filed the First Appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that once the DPC has been concluded, the vigilance clearance or promotion orders are no more confidential documents and can be provided under RTI Act.
Accordingly, the FAA directed the PIO to provide the requisite information to the applicant. In compliance of the order of the FAA, the PIO furnished the requisite documents to the applicant. Despite this, the applicant knocked the doors of the CIC with the plea that full information was not provided.
Rejecting the FAA’s reasoning, the CIC relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal and other landmark rulings to underline the scope of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j).
Quoting the judgment, the Commission noted that professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are all personal information and are entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The CIC categorically held that the disclosure made by the department was in contravention to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act and viewed the lapse adversely. It further ruled that the FAA’s order was “per incuriam”, effectively rendering it legally unsustainable.
Issuing a clear warning, the Commission advised the First Appellate Authority to exercise due caution while ordering disclosure of information related to Third Parties in the future.
In another case, the RTI applicant had sought wide-ranging information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in Jammu Municipal Corporation. The queries included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable. However, the First Appellate Authority, while deciding the First Appeal, directed the PIO to furnish the information to the applicant.
As the PIO reiterated the stand taken in the reply furnished to the original application, the applicant knocked the doors of the Central Information Commission. During the course of Second Appeal proceedings, the PIO submitted before the transparency watchdog of the country that information pertaining to certain points has already been furnished to the applicant.
Examining the response, the CIC found that while supplying information, the respondent has disclosed copies of contracts relating to Third Party contractual employees, violating the privacy of the individuals and provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
It further observed that such disclosure was made without even following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which governs Third-Party information. The Commission categorically held that the PIO has erred in furnishing information which should have been denied under provisions of the RTI Act.
Taking a stern view of the violation, the Commission has directed the CPIO/Under Secretary, JMC to submit an explanation as to why penal action should not be initiated for breaching the provisions of the RTI Act.
In another case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, Kulgam, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. It also took exception to the absence of the PIO during the hearing without any advance prayer for leave and for disregarding the instructions issued in the notice of hearing.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses.
Significantly, the Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.
Thousands of RTI appeals stuck in Bihar, High Court seeks update : Written by: Santosh Singh
The Indian Express: Patna: Monday, 20 April 2026.
Over 28,000 appeals pending before Bihar Information Commission; PIL seeks time-bound disposal of these.
Flagging that over 28,000
appeals are pending with the Bihar Information Commission (BIC), the Patna High
Court has sought a status report from the state government on filling vacant
positions in the commission. Under the RTI Act, 2005, first appeals should be
disposed of within 45 days and second appeals within 90 days.
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Praween Kumar vs the State of Bihar, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar said in an order on April 16 that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. The matter will be heard next on June 18, 2026. A similar matter is also being heard by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench noted, “…the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next date of hearing, which was fixed for 28.04.2026.” The court asked for a status update on the Supreme Court case at the next hearing.
The government counsel submitted that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court, in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of by an order dated February 15, 2019. However, Miscellaneous Application No. 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case. The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026, stating that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts for Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, of which one is vacant and the process to fill it is underway.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, had directed Bihar to consider increasing the sanctioned strength in light of the pendency of appeals and to file a response before the next hearing scheduled for April 28, 2026.
Amarendra Kumar, an RTI activist who was informed by the government about the pendency of appeals in the BIC, told The Indian Express: “Of the over 28,000 pending second appeals, more than 100 have been filed by me alone. Some of these appeals pertain to several serious issues of corruption.”
The PIL seeks strict disposal of first appeals within 45 days and second appeals within 90 days, or within such reasonable time as the High Court deems fit, as stipulated under the RTI Act. It also calls for the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that “adverse entries” are recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of officers penalised three or more times under the RTI Act.
The PIL further requests the court to direct the State Information Commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on Public Information Officers (PIOs) in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It also seeks a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered “loss of opportunity” due to excessive delays in furnishing information, and to treat such delays as a “constitutional tort” and a violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
Over 28,000 appeals pending before Bihar Information Commission; PIL seeks time-bound disposal of these.
 |
| The PIL seeks strict disposal of first appeals within 45 days and second appeals within 90 days, or within such reasonable time as the High Court deems fit, as stipulated under the RTI Act. (Image generated using AI) |
Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Praween Kumar vs the State of Bihar, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar said in an order on April 16 that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. The matter will be heard next on June 18, 2026. A similar matter is also being heard by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench noted, “…the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State of Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next date of hearing, which was fixed for 28.04.2026.” The court asked for a status update on the Supreme Court case at the next hearing.
The government counsel submitted that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court, in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of by an order dated February 15, 2019. However, Miscellaneous Application No. 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case. The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026, stating that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts for Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, of which one is vacant and the process to fill it is underway.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, had directed Bihar to consider increasing the sanctioned strength in light of the pendency of appeals and to file a response before the next hearing scheduled for April 28, 2026.
Amarendra Kumar, an RTI activist who was informed by the government about the pendency of appeals in the BIC, told The Indian Express: “Of the over 28,000 pending second appeals, more than 100 have been filed by me alone. Some of these appeals pertain to several serious issues of corruption.”
The PIL seeks strict disposal of first appeals within 45 days and second appeals within 90 days, or within such reasonable time as the High Court deems fit, as stipulated under the RTI Act. It also calls for the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that “adverse entries” are recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of officers penalised three or more times under the RTI Act.
The PIL further requests the court to direct the State Information Commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on Public Information Officers (PIOs) in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It also seeks a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered “loss of opportunity” due to excessive delays in furnishing information, and to treat such delays as a “constitutional tort” and a violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
Sunday, April 19, 2026
You must divulge, we shan’t disclose : Venkatesh Nayak
Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, April
19, 2026.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications.
Last week,
country-wide field operations for listing households began under the
muchdelayed census exercise. Government-appointed enumerators are visiting our
homes to ask 33 questions about the condition of our dwellings, the nature of
building materials used, the name, age and sex of people living together,
access to water and electricity, cooking facilities, type of toilets and sewage
outlets constructed, and our ownership of assets like radio, TV, computer,
vehicles, and telephones. They will also ask what foodgrain we eat.
Under the 1948 Census Act, we are obligated to answer these questions to the best of our knowledge. Intentionally refusing to answer or giving false answers invites a fine of up to Rs 1,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
Next year, they will quiz us about caste affiliation. Ironically, the report of the 2011 SocioEconomic Caste Census has never been made public. Now, the government has told a prominent English daily that the materials on the basis of which the Union Cabinet has decided to count people’s caste claims, once again, cannot be revealed under RTI. When this decision to include caste as a census category was announced last April, I had sought the relevant Cabinet note put up for discussion. The Cabinet Secretariat denied access, citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which protects pre-decisional cabinet confidentiality. People do not have the right to know if they can name their caste themselves or will have to choose from a list that the government might compile, at least not yet.
The 21-year-old RTI regime covers the entire State apparatus from village panchayats to Rashtrapati Bhawan, where the Cabinet Secretariat was housed until this February. Our transparency law is one of the few in the world which mandate the disclosure of all materials that form the basis of Cabinet decision-making, after the matter is complete and over. Nevertheless, bureaucrats are arbitrating what we, the citizenry, may be told about the working of the country’s top-most executive decision-making body. There are no adverse legal consequences for their opacity.
Of course, press notes are often released about major decisions taken in the weekly or special Cabinet meetings. But for more than a decade, little else is revealed – be it the agenda items, or the notes which contain details of the proposals put up for the Cabinet’s approval and which ministry said what about each proposal, or matters which were sent back for reconsideration.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications. This is how we got to know that the nodal department for RTI implementation under the Prime Minister was initially excluded from the inter-ministerial consultations over introducing new exemption clauses through the now-shelved Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill. Similarly, it is through the enforced disclosure of Cabinet notes that we learned how and why the CBI got itself excluded from RTI. The government’s stance that citizens cannot have an absolute right to blow the whistle on internal corruption and wrongdoing was also revealed when amendments were proposed to the stillborn Whistleblowers Protection Act.
But of late, queries about decisions taken to weaken Cabinet oversight and departmental accountability are being rejected. For example, I had sought Cabinet documents relating to the decision taken recently to exempt prior approval by the Union Cabinet for international agreements and MoUs which our ministers and babus sign during foreign visits. I had also queried last year’s decision to remove the requirement of reporting to the Cabinet details of work done by the departments every month, under the Transaction of Business Rules. The Cabinet Secretariat refused information by not only invoking Section 8(1)(i) but also Article 74(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by ministers to the President. This is despite the Supreme Court’s crystal-clear case law stating that the bar applies only to the ministerial advice given, not to the materials on which it is based.
Interestingly, data published by the Central Information Commission shows the use of the Cabinet-related RTI exemption nearly doubled last year, from 396 to 654 cases. Public authorities under the Finance Ministry used it more than 300 times. In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants to know more about citizens’ affairs. But records of the work done by the country’s top-most ‘panchayat’ are locked up as sarkari secrets in cabinets (I saw their manner of storage during an RTI inspection), in perpetuity.
The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications.
.jpg) |
| Venkatesh Nayak |
Under the 1948 Census Act, we are obligated to answer these questions to the best of our knowledge. Intentionally refusing to answer or giving false answers invites a fine of up to Rs 1,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
Next year, they will quiz us about caste affiliation. Ironically, the report of the 2011 SocioEconomic Caste Census has never been made public. Now, the government has told a prominent English daily that the materials on the basis of which the Union Cabinet has decided to count people’s caste claims, once again, cannot be revealed under RTI. When this decision to include caste as a census category was announced last April, I had sought the relevant Cabinet note put up for discussion. The Cabinet Secretariat denied access, citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which protects pre-decisional cabinet confidentiality. People do not have the right to know if they can name their caste themselves or will have to choose from a list that the government might compile, at least not yet.
The 21-year-old RTI regime covers the entire State apparatus from village panchayats to Rashtrapati Bhawan, where the Cabinet Secretariat was housed until this February. Our transparency law is one of the few in the world which mandate the disclosure of all materials that form the basis of Cabinet decision-making, after the matter is complete and over. Nevertheless, bureaucrats are arbitrating what we, the citizenry, may be told about the working of the country’s top-most executive decision-making body. There are no adverse legal consequences for their opacity.
Of course, press notes are often released about major decisions taken in the weekly or special Cabinet meetings. But for more than a decade, little else is revealed – be it the agenda items, or the notes which contain details of the proposals put up for the Cabinet’s approval and which ministry said what about each proposal, or matters which were sent back for reconsideration.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications. This is how we got to know that the nodal department for RTI implementation under the Prime Minister was initially excluded from the inter-ministerial consultations over introducing new exemption clauses through the now-shelved Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill. Similarly, it is through the enforced disclosure of Cabinet notes that we learned how and why the CBI got itself excluded from RTI. The government’s stance that citizens cannot have an absolute right to blow the whistle on internal corruption and wrongdoing was also revealed when amendments were proposed to the stillborn Whistleblowers Protection Act.
But of late, queries about decisions taken to weaken Cabinet oversight and departmental accountability are being rejected. For example, I had sought Cabinet documents relating to the decision taken recently to exempt prior approval by the Union Cabinet for international agreements and MoUs which our ministers and babus sign during foreign visits. I had also queried last year’s decision to remove the requirement of reporting to the Cabinet details of work done by the departments every month, under the Transaction of Business Rules. The Cabinet Secretariat refused information by not only invoking Section 8(1)(i) but also Article 74(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by ministers to the President. This is despite the Supreme Court’s crystal-clear case law stating that the bar applies only to the ministerial advice given, not to the materials on which it is based.
Interestingly, data published by the Central Information Commission shows the use of the Cabinet-related RTI exemption nearly doubled last year, from 396 to 654 cases. Public authorities under the Finance Ministry used it more than 300 times. In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants to know more about citizens’ affairs. But records of the work done by the country’s top-most ‘panchayat’ are locked up as sarkari secrets in cabinets (I saw their manner of storage during an RTI inspection), in perpetuity.
The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.
40,000 RTI appeals disposed of in a year: Karnataka information commissioner
The Hindu: Karnataka: Sunday, April
19, 2026.
Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the Kalaburagi district administration organise workshop on RTI Act for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs
The Karnataka
Information Commission has disposed of a record 40,000 Right to Information
(RTI) appeal cases in the past one year, the highest in India, according to B.
Venkat Singh, Commissioner of the Kalaburagi bench of the commission.
On April 18, he inaugurated a workshop on the RTI Act organised jointly by the Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the district administration at the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Kalaburagi for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs.
Mr. Singh said the commission is committed to providing information to people and added that the disposal of cases had gained further momentum after the appointment of new commissioners in October 2025. “After assuming charge at the Kalaburagi bench, around 1,187 appeal cases have been disposed of within 90 days, including several pending for five to six years,” he said.
He noted that in certain cases, penalties had been imposed on officials for failing to provide information, but the fines were not being deducted from their salaries. He urged Deputy Commissioners to take note of the issue and issue necessary directions to ensure compliance.
Emphasising the importance of transparency and accountability in public administration, Mr. Singh said the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that citizens have access to information. He traced the history of the law, noting that similar legislation dates back to 1766 in Sweden, and was later adopted in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and in India in 2005.
Another Information Commissioner Richard Vincent D’Souza said that a proper understanding of the Act would make it easier to dispose of applications. He added that the law plays a crucial role in building a corruption-free society and mandates accountability among public servants. Except for information exempted under the Act, such as matters relating to privacy and national interest, departments should proactively disclose information on their websites, he said.
Another Commissioner, Mahesh Valwekar, advised officials not to be apprehensive about RTI applications. “If the Act is properly understood, there is no need to fear applications. Clear and timely responses must be given,” he said, adding that applications should be disposed of within 30 days, and those pertaining to other offices should be transferred within five days.
Pro-active disclosure to reduce RTI applications
Addressing a media conference later in the day, Mr. Singh said Public Information Officers have been instructed to proactively disclose departmental information in accordance with Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
He said that if departments voluntarily placed information in the public domain, the number of RTI applications would come down significantly. “The core objective of the RTI Act is transparency and accountability. Pro-active disclosure will help achieve this, and reduce the burden on offices,” he said.
Mr. Singh added that similar workshops were being organised across districts in the Kalaburagi division to create awareness among officials about provisions of the Act, and the need for timely disposal of applications. He said several doubts raised by officials regarding the processing of applications were clarified during the workshop, and directions had been issued to serve notices to those who remained absent.
He pointed out that some individuals were misusing the RTI Act without any larger public interest, causing unnecessary inconvenience to officials. “26 such persons across Karnataka have been barred from filing RTI applications, including some from the Kalaburagi division,” he said.
Municipal Commissioner Avinash Shinde, Assistant Commissioner Sahitya Aladakatti, Zilla Panchayat Deputy Secretary Laxman Shrungeri, Planning Director Jagadeppa and officials at various levels, including PDOs and VAs, attended the workshop.
Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the Kalaburagi district administration organise workshop on RTI Act for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs
.jpg) |
| B. Venkat Singh, Karnataka Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi bench), along with other commissioners, addressing a media conference after the inauguration of a workshop on the RTI Act in Kalaburagi on April 18, 2026. | Photo Credit: ARUN KULKARNI |
On April 18, he inaugurated a workshop on the RTI Act organised jointly by the Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the district administration at the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Kalaburagi for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs.
Mr. Singh said the commission is committed to providing information to people and added that the disposal of cases had gained further momentum after the appointment of new commissioners in October 2025. “After assuming charge at the Kalaburagi bench, around 1,187 appeal cases have been disposed of within 90 days, including several pending for five to six years,” he said.
He noted that in certain cases, penalties had been imposed on officials for failing to provide information, but the fines were not being deducted from their salaries. He urged Deputy Commissioners to take note of the issue and issue necessary directions to ensure compliance.
Emphasising the importance of transparency and accountability in public administration, Mr. Singh said the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that citizens have access to information. He traced the history of the law, noting that similar legislation dates back to 1766 in Sweden, and was later adopted in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and in India in 2005.
Another Information Commissioner Richard Vincent D’Souza said that a proper understanding of the Act would make it easier to dispose of applications. He added that the law plays a crucial role in building a corruption-free society and mandates accountability among public servants. Except for information exempted under the Act, such as matters relating to privacy and national interest, departments should proactively disclose information on their websites, he said.
Another Commissioner, Mahesh Valwekar, advised officials not to be apprehensive about RTI applications. “If the Act is properly understood, there is no need to fear applications. Clear and timely responses must be given,” he said, adding that applications should be disposed of within 30 days, and those pertaining to other offices should be transferred within five days.
Pro-active disclosure to reduce RTI applications
Addressing a media conference later in the day, Mr. Singh said Public Information Officers have been instructed to proactively disclose departmental information in accordance with Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
He said that if departments voluntarily placed information in the public domain, the number of RTI applications would come down significantly. “The core objective of the RTI Act is transparency and accountability. Pro-active disclosure will help achieve this, and reduce the burden on offices,” he said.
Mr. Singh added that similar workshops were being organised across districts in the Kalaburagi division to create awareness among officials about provisions of the Act, and the need for timely disposal of applications. He said several doubts raised by officials regarding the processing of applications were clarified during the workshop, and directions had been issued to serve notices to those who remained absent.
He pointed out that some individuals were misusing the RTI Act without any larger public interest, causing unnecessary inconvenience to officials. “26 such persons across Karnataka have been barred from filing RTI applications, including some from the Kalaburagi division,” he said.
Municipal Commissioner Avinash Shinde, Assistant Commissioner Sahitya Aladakatti, Zilla Panchayat Deputy Secretary Laxman Shrungeri, Planning Director Jagadeppa and officials at various levels, including PDOs and VAs, attended the workshop.
Saturday, April 18, 2026
पटना हाईकोर्ट ने RTI की व्यवस्थागत असफलता पर जताई नाराजगी, मामले की अगली सुनवाई 18 जून तय
Dailyhunt: Patna: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
पटना हाईकोर्ट ने बिहार में सूचना के अधिकार की व्यवस्थागत असफलता पर सख्त रुख अपनाया.30,000लंबित अपीलों के मामले पर चीफ जस्टिस संगम कुमार साहू की खंडपीठ ने सुनवाई की. इस मामले की अगली सुनवाई18जून,2026को की जाएगी.
बिहार राज्य में सूचना
का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005के प्रावधानों को लागू करने में भारी विफलता और राज्य
सूचना आयोग में लगभग30,000अपीलों के लंबित होने के मामले
को पटना हाईकोर्ट ने बहुत गंभीरता से लिया है.
राज्य में आरटीआई व्यवस्था में इस दुर्दशा के विरुद्ध कोर्ट से हस्तक्षेप की मांग करते हुए अधिवक्ता प्रवीण कुमार द्वारा एक जनहित याचिका दायर की गई थी. कोर्ट में इस जनहित याचिका में याचिकाकर्ता की ओर से अधिवक्ता राजेश कुमार शर्मा ने पक्ष को प्रस्तुत करते हुए बताया कि सूचना का अधिकार,जो भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद19(1)(क) के तहत नागरिकों के जानने के मौलिक अधिकार और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता का एक अभिन्न अंग है,वह आज अधिकारियों द्वारा सूचना देने में अत्यधिक विलंब और वैधानिक दंडों के प्रभावी ढंग से लागू नहीं होने के कारण पूरी तरह असफल हो गया है.
वर्तमान मामला बिहार में सूचना अधिकार तंत्र की पूर्ण व्यवस्थागत विफलता को दर्शाता है. जहाँ नागरिकों के आवेदन वर्षों तक आयोग में लंबित रहते हैं,दोषी लोक सूचना अधिकारियों पर अनिवार्य जुर्माना शायद ही कभी लगाया जाता है.
आम लोगों को उनके सूचना के मौलिक अधिकार से वंचित रहना पड़ रहा है. अधिवक्ता ने कोर्ट के समक्ष यह बात प्रमुखता से रखी कि ऐसी प्रशासनिक विफलताएँ इस अति महत्वपूर्ण कानून को कमजोर करती हैं.
इससे व्यवस्था की पारदर्शिता,जवाबदेही और संपूर्ण लोकतांत्रिक शासन व्यवस्था बुरी तरह प्रभावित होती है. जब नागरिकों को सूचना के अधिकार के अधिकार से वंचित किया जाता है,तो वास्तव में उनके मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन होता है.
सुनवाई के दौरान,राज्य सूचना आयोग की ओर से वरीय अधिवक्ता ललित किशोर ने कोर्ट को सूचित किया कि इसी तरह का एक मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष लंबित है,जिस पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में अगली सुनवाई28अप्रैल,2026को निर्धारित है.
इन तथ्यों पर विचार करते हुए कि यह मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष विचाराधीन है,पटना हाईकोर्ट ने इस जनहित याचिका पर अगली सुनवाई की तिथि18जून,2026निर्धारित की है.
कोर्ट का यह आदेश इस बात को स्पष्ट करता है कि नागरिकों के सूचना प्राप्त करने के अधिकार को इस तरह मृत पत्र बनाकर निष्क्रिय नहीं होने दिया जा सकता है.
पटना हाईकोर्ट ने बिहार में सूचना के अधिकार की व्यवस्थागत असफलता पर सख्त रुख अपनाया.30,000लंबित अपीलों के मामले पर चीफ जस्टिस संगम कुमार साहू की खंडपीठ ने सुनवाई की. इस मामले की अगली सुनवाई18जून,2026को की जाएगी.
राज्य में आरटीआई व्यवस्था में इस दुर्दशा के विरुद्ध कोर्ट से हस्तक्षेप की मांग करते हुए अधिवक्ता प्रवीण कुमार द्वारा एक जनहित याचिका दायर की गई थी. कोर्ट में इस जनहित याचिका में याचिकाकर्ता की ओर से अधिवक्ता राजेश कुमार शर्मा ने पक्ष को प्रस्तुत करते हुए बताया कि सूचना का अधिकार,जो भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद19(1)(क) के तहत नागरिकों के जानने के मौलिक अधिकार और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता का एक अभिन्न अंग है,वह आज अधिकारियों द्वारा सूचना देने में अत्यधिक विलंब और वैधानिक दंडों के प्रभावी ढंग से लागू नहीं होने के कारण पूरी तरह असफल हो गया है.
वर्तमान मामला बिहार में सूचना अधिकार तंत्र की पूर्ण व्यवस्थागत विफलता को दर्शाता है. जहाँ नागरिकों के आवेदन वर्षों तक आयोग में लंबित रहते हैं,दोषी लोक सूचना अधिकारियों पर अनिवार्य जुर्माना शायद ही कभी लगाया जाता है.
आम लोगों को उनके सूचना के मौलिक अधिकार से वंचित रहना पड़ रहा है. अधिवक्ता ने कोर्ट के समक्ष यह बात प्रमुखता से रखी कि ऐसी प्रशासनिक विफलताएँ इस अति महत्वपूर्ण कानून को कमजोर करती हैं.
इससे व्यवस्था की पारदर्शिता,जवाबदेही और संपूर्ण लोकतांत्रिक शासन व्यवस्था बुरी तरह प्रभावित होती है. जब नागरिकों को सूचना के अधिकार के अधिकार से वंचित किया जाता है,तो वास्तव में उनके मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन होता है.
सुनवाई के दौरान,राज्य सूचना आयोग की ओर से वरीय अधिवक्ता ललित किशोर ने कोर्ट को सूचित किया कि इसी तरह का एक मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष लंबित है,जिस पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में अगली सुनवाई28अप्रैल,2026को निर्धारित है.
इन तथ्यों पर विचार करते हुए कि यह मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष विचाराधीन है,पटना हाईकोर्ट ने इस जनहित याचिका पर अगली सुनवाई की तिथि18जून,2026निर्धारित की है.
कोर्ट का यह आदेश इस बात को स्पष्ट करता है कि नागरिकों के सूचना प्राप्त करने के अधिकार को इस तरह मृत पत्र बनाकर निष्क्रिय नहीं होने दिया जा सकता है.
RTI Documents Link NHAI to Pashan Lake Fish Deaths in Pune
Punekar: Pune: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
Fresh disclosures obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have brought the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under scrutiny in connection with the recent ecological damage at Pashan Lake, where thousands of fish were found dead.
According to official
records from the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), a major drainage line was
damaged during excavation work carried out by NHAI along the Bavdhan service road.
The drainage infrastructure had been installed by the civic body following
earlier directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to protect the lake’s
ecosystem.
Civic documents indicate that the damaged line was not repaired promptly, leading to the discharge of more than 200,000 litres of untreated sewage per day into stormwater lines. These lines eventually connect to the water system feeding Pashan Lake, potentially contributing to the deterioration of water quality.
Advocate Krunnal Gharre, who accessed and shared the RTI documents, alleged that the incident reflects multiple administrative lapses. He claimed that the continuous flow of untreated sewage near the lake contributed significantly to water toxicity. Gharre also alleged that repeated warnings issued by PMC officials to NHAI regarding the damage and associated public health risks were not acted upon.
The records further suggest that PMC had cautioned NHAI about possible outbreaks of vector-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria due to stagnant and contaminated water. Despite formal communication and follow-ups, the repair work was allegedly not completed, and the site was left unattended.
Gharre also stated that attempts to coordinate corrective measures were met with a lack of clarity and accountability among officials. He has called for a broader investigation into the roles of various agencies, including NHAI, and has urged authorities such as the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and PMC to examine liability and initiate appropriate legal and financial action.
Authorities have not yet issued an official response to the latest allegations. The investigation into the Pashan Lake incident is ongoing.
Fresh disclosures obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have brought the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under scrutiny in connection with the recent ecological damage at Pashan Lake, where thousands of fish were found dead.
Civic documents indicate that the damaged line was not repaired promptly, leading to the discharge of more than 200,000 litres of untreated sewage per day into stormwater lines. These lines eventually connect to the water system feeding Pashan Lake, potentially contributing to the deterioration of water quality.
Advocate Krunnal Gharre, who accessed and shared the RTI documents, alleged that the incident reflects multiple administrative lapses. He claimed that the continuous flow of untreated sewage near the lake contributed significantly to water toxicity. Gharre also alleged that repeated warnings issued by PMC officials to NHAI regarding the damage and associated public health risks were not acted upon.
The records further suggest that PMC had cautioned NHAI about possible outbreaks of vector-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria due to stagnant and contaminated water. Despite formal communication and follow-ups, the repair work was allegedly not completed, and the site was left unattended.
Gharre also stated that attempts to coordinate corrective measures were met with a lack of clarity and accountability among officials. He has called for a broader investigation into the roles of various agencies, including NHAI, and has urged authorities such as the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and PMC to examine liability and initiate appropriate legal and financial action.
Authorities have not yet issued an official response to the latest allegations. The investigation into the Pashan Lake incident is ongoing.
30,000 Second Appeals And Complaints Under RTI Pending Before Bihar Information Commission
ETV Bharat: Bihar: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
Amarendra said that over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC.
Around 30,000 second
appeals and complaints under the Right To Information (RTI) are pending before
the Bihar Information Commission (BIC), revealing the poor implementation of
the Act that was brought in 2005 to empower citizens to hold the government accountable
and bring transparency in its work. The data tumbled out after the Patna high
court took up a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to address the
situation.
Hearing the PIL (CWJC 3089 of 2026) Praween Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed on Thursday that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. It has scheduled the next hearing of the case on June 18, 2026.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us annexure P/4 to the writ petition, which contains information supplied to one Amarendra Kumar, dated April 28, 2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total pendency of second appeals or complaints before the BSIC as of December 2024 was 28,292,” the high court said in its order on Thursday.
Amarendra is an RTI activist based in Muzaffarpur. Talking to ETV Bharat, he said: “Over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC. Suitable and timely redressals will improve public welfare and check corruption.”
The PIL in the Patna high court has sought first appeals to be strictly disposed of within 45 days as stipulated under the RTI Act, and second appeals within 90 days or such reasonable time the high court deems fit. It also called for issuance of a direction to the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that ‘adverse entries’ are recorded in the annual confidential reports (ACR) of officers who are penalised thrice of more under the RTI Act.
Further, the case sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus (court’s command or order) to the state information commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on government public information officers (PIOs) appointed in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It has also requested the high court to direct that the penalty must be automatically deducted from the officer’s personal salary, and is not paid by the concerned department.
The PIL has also sought a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered ‘loss of opportunity’ due to excessive delays in furnishing information and treat such delays as ‘Constitutional tort’ and violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the senior counsel submitted before the court that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of vide order dated February 15, 2019. However, a miscellaneous application number 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case.
The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026 that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners, of which one is lying vacant and the process of filling it up was going on.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, directed Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next hearing fixed on April 28, 2026.
Taking into consideration the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Patna high court listed the PIL on June 18 and directed the counsels for the respondents to apprise about the status of the miscellaneous application no. 1979 of 2019.
Amarendra said that over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC.
Hearing the PIL (CWJC 3089 of 2026) Praween Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed on Thursday that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. It has scheduled the next hearing of the case on June 18, 2026.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us annexure P/4 to the writ petition, which contains information supplied to one Amarendra Kumar, dated April 28, 2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total pendency of second appeals or complaints before the BSIC as of December 2024 was 28,292,” the high court said in its order on Thursday.
Amarendra is an RTI activist based in Muzaffarpur. Talking to ETV Bharat, he said: “Over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC. Suitable and timely redressals will improve public welfare and check corruption.”
The PIL in the Patna high court has sought first appeals to be strictly disposed of within 45 days as stipulated under the RTI Act, and second appeals within 90 days or such reasonable time the high court deems fit. It also called for issuance of a direction to the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that ‘adverse entries’ are recorded in the annual confidential reports (ACR) of officers who are penalised thrice of more under the RTI Act.
Further, the case sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus (court’s command or order) to the state information commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on government public information officers (PIOs) appointed in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It has also requested the high court to direct that the penalty must be automatically deducted from the officer’s personal salary, and is not paid by the concerned department.
The PIL has also sought a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered ‘loss of opportunity’ due to excessive delays in furnishing information and treat such delays as ‘Constitutional tort’ and violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the senior counsel submitted before the court that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of vide order dated February 15, 2019. However, a miscellaneous application number 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case.
The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026 that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners, of which one is lying vacant and the process of filling it up was going on.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, directed Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next hearing fixed on April 28, 2026.
Taking into consideration the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Patna high court listed the PIL on June 18 and directed the counsels for the respondents to apprise about the status of the miscellaneous application no. 1979 of 2019.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
.JPG)
