We can't have transparent government without freedom of information

Innisfail Today: Australia: Friday, 10^Th April 2026.

Legislation introduced by Premier Doug Ford's government would amend the law shaping the province’s freedom of information system to end the public’s ability to request the records of the premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and their offices. (File photo)Tyler Evans/OrilliaMatters
Letter to the Editor: 'Decreasing our abilities to access information which is our due will only make it more difficult for us to understand how the government that we elected is carrying on,' letter writer says
Our Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a public tool that "ensures" government decisions are accountable to the public.
The people who hold power are temporary; we citizens are permanent. The government acts in the people's name. They spend our public dollars.
We elect these politicians to act for us. How else can we have a sincere and transparent government if we don't have our freedom of information? It is our right.
If not for the FOI Act, we would never have learned about the Greenbelt Scandal.
Decreasing our abilities to access information which is our due will only make it more difficult for us to understand how the government that we elected is carrying on.
Once the freedom is removed, we will never get it back. This will hurt our democracy. Please write to your MPP and to Premier Doug Ford and state your concerns. Let's do this for the sake of our kids and their kids.
Donna Deneault
Stouffville

My first six months as FOI commissioner: Building trust and promoting good administration : Alice Linacre PSM (Freedom of Information Commissioner)

OAIC: Australia: Friday, 10^Th April 2026.

Australia has a rich legislative landscape.  The statute books are filled with statutory realisations of policy and principles.  The Freedom of Information Act 1982 is one of these pieces of legislation.  It is a rich demonstration of an ideal.  It has flaws, like all legislative vehicles, but the objects it espouses are explicit and larger than the words of the Act. It upholds democratic principles of engaging the people that democracy serves, of allowing debate and informed engagement.
Information asymmetry is one of the greatest means of eroding democratic participation.  Prior to the FOI Act, the presumption was of secrecy and that citizens did not have a right to access government information.  The FOI Act reversed that presumption.
Building trust and enabling public participation
FOI is not an abstract ideal. It underpins public participation, scrutiny and confidence that decisions are being made for the public good.
My role as FOI Commissioner is to build trust in the FOI system and highlight its importance to both the Australian community and the public service.
In almost first six months in this role, I reflect on the complex role that administration of FOI plays.  The volume of FOI decision-making (43,456 applications and 25,211 decisions last financial year) and the rate of review (with the number of IC reviews sought up 21% to 2,134 over the same period), would suggest a highly engaged population.  FOI is fundamental to democracy, enabling people to understand government actions, challenge decisions and participate in civic life.
The Australian Public Service Commission recently released its Trust in Public Services 2025 Annual Report- external site, in which a common theme of those reporting increased trust, was greater transparency and communication.
Transparency is now an accepted principle of the Australian democratic fabric.  This is reflected in the Commonwealth Integrity Strategy- external site which includes FOI metrics under the outcome ‘Transparency and accountability of actions and decisions are improved’.
The objects of the FOI Act are explicit in the intention to promote Australia’s representative democracy.  At a time where information proliferation is endemic, the role of fact checking and getting information from government remains of critical importance. However, these objects are irrelevant in the absence of good administration of the Act.
Commissioner priorities
Carrying on from my predecessor, I have committed to four priorities that guide the OAIC’s work in the FOI space:

1. Promote Open Government to better serve the Australian community.
2. Make FOI compliance easier.
3. Increase OAIC FOI regulatory and case management effectiveness.
4. Uplift agency capability in the exercise of FOI functions.

These priorities reflect something I’ve heard consistently from agencies, practitioners and those using the FOI system in my first few months in the role. That is, improving the FOI systems is not just about meeting statutory obligations, it is about building trusted workable systems, clear processes and practical support. These priorities build on the work agencies are doing to drive administrative excellence of the realisation of this right.
Administrative excellence is key
The mere presence of the FOI Act does not deliver the right, that is done through administration of the FOI Act. The objects of the Act tell us to exercise the powers and functions “to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost” (section 3(4)).
Good administration of the FOI Act means looking for better and more effective ways to meet its objects in practice.  Reducing the need for FOI requests by proactively publishing information is one of the simplest ways to improve the FOI experience.
By releasing more information proactively, the FOI system will become more efficient and effective for the community and for government, in that it:

• Informs the community, with enhanced transparency and accountability of policy making, decision making and delivery of government services.
• Builds trust and confidence.
• Improves services delivery and promotes efficiency by reducing the administrative impact on departments and agencies. It is also cheaper and faster than engaging with formal access processes.
• Reduces the need for individuals to make formal information access requests.

In my view, the space for access requests under the FOI act should ideally only be information that can’t be released proactively, for example, through the Information Publication Scheme (IPS), administrative access schemes and disclosure log obligations.
Disclosure logs support transparency and efficiency by highlighting information that, when frequently sought under the FOI Act, could be proactively released by agencies. Disclosure logs also continue to be an effective strategy for reducing multiple FOI requests for the same information.
In the coming weeks, the OAIC will launch a disclosure log hub to be hosted on the OAIC website.  The hub will provide easy access to the disclosure logs of over 240 agencies. Practical tools like this, make our system easier to navigate and will continue to enhance the community’s understanding of this right and their ability to use the material released.
Features of good administration
The realisation of the FOI Act objects is entirely dependent on good administration.  So, what does good administration of the FOI Act look like for agencies.  These are features that can be expanded beyond FOI and reflect healthy administrative practices.
I think good administrative practice has these features:

• Leadership and culture - an acknowledgement that FOI is not an option. It is a right that the community has, to request information from government and an obligation to do so within the legal framework.
• Respect for the law - for parliament’s intention in passing legislation to enshrine this right and give it real world work to do.
• Proactive release of information - how these rights can be realised in the most efficient way possible for the community (and for government), by proactively releasing information.
• Innovation - how the public service can work differently, including but not limited to the deployment of new technology and tools, to meet the demands of our community and comply with the law.
• Excellence - how FOI decision-making can be effective and respect the objects of the Act, while working within the resources available.
• Respectful of the human-centred nature of government - engaging with those that seek to exercise the right in a manner that appreciates the inherent power imbalance, that explains government decisions clearly and acknowledges the community wants to understand and may challenge those decisions.
• Investigating issues - when they arise so that issues in administration can be raised and continuous improvement can be achieved. It is collecting and using data to identify roadblocks, sharing what works and targeting our collective effort where it will have the greatest impact.

One of the greatest issues in FOI administration is timeliness.  The FOI Act has timeframes that must be complied with to meet the objects of the Act.  Timeliness is a core part of whether the FOI system feels fair and trustworthy and links directly to the OAIC’s regulatory focus on ensuring timely access to government information.
Expectation for steady and sustainable improvement
Already this year I have engaged with agencies through roundtables, webinars and in 1:1 meetings and have set the expectation for steady and sustainable improvement. I have also committed to continue sharing what’s working in FOI administration, lessons learnt and spotlighting better practice examples. Even sharing small insights and learnings can help others move faster and with more confidence, together, contributing to broader system wide uplift.
Agencies are already working hard across the system to make it better. A great example, as highlighted in our Annual Report for 24-25 is the Department of Veterans Affairs, which experienced a 52% decrease in FOI requests and 29% reduction in IC reviews. From 1,806 in 2023–24 to 873 in 2024–25, DVA identified a major contributor to that decrease being its efforts to encourage the use of administrative access where appropriate. This simple practice delivers outcomes that promote confidence in the agency’s practices but also reduces their FOI request load. Other agencies are having similar success by deploying innovative approaches and using their resources differently. The National Disability Insurance Agency has made changes to the way it manages FOI requests, deploying case management systems, training and lowering delegations for decision-makers to great effect.
This initial months in this role have further impressed upon me the importance of our FOI framework. It has also highlighted the challenges, and opportunities to innovate, in order to administer that framework such that it is realised for the benefit of all Australians.

Karnataka Information Commission riled over government not recovering penalty from salary of officials denying info under RTI Act : Sharath S. Srivatsa

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Friday, 10^Th April 2026.
So far, only ₹2.70 crore has been recovered from 3,084 Public Information Officers while the KIC has imposed a fine of ₹10.38 crores on 10,843 government officials designated as PIOs

Penalties are imposed by KIC on officials against whom second appeal is moved by the applicant after the first appeal available within the department also would not secure the information sought under the RTI Act. | Photo Credit: Aijaz Rahi

The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has taken exception to the State Government not recovering penalty imposed on officials who have avoided sharing information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005.
The KIC has so far imposed a penalty of ₹10.38 crore on 10,843 government officials designated as Public Information Officers (PIOs). Of this, just about ₹2.70 crore has been recovered from 3,084 PIOs.
KIC sources said that some of the pending cases date back to 2012. The maximum fine that can be levied under the law for denying information is ₹25,000.
In a communication to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, a copy of which is with The Hindu, Chief Information Commissioner Raman K. has pointed out that the PIOs have shown dereliction of duty.
People feel KIC’s orders are useless
“Though there are circulars to recover the penalty from the salary and initiate disciplinary action, the departmental heads have not taken action. This has belittled the Information Commission’s order, and people are feeling that the KIC’s orders are useless,” the letter stated.
In 2014, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms had issued a circular making the controlling officers in the department responsible for initiating penalty recovery process and remitting the amount to the State treasury. The circular had been issued in 2014 following a similar complaint of non-recovery of penalties, and based on recommendation of KIC in its 2012-2013 annual report.
These are penalties imposed by KIC on officials against whom second appeal is moved by the applicant after the first appeal available within the department also would not secure the information sought under the RTI Act.
Highest number of cases
The departments of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Revenue and Urban Development are among the 33 departments with the highest number of pending cases. While 3,270 officials in RDPR were found guilty of not providing information and a penalty of ₹2.97 crore had been imposed, the department has been able to recover ₹79.25 lakh from 993 officials.
In Revenue Department, 2,963 officials were penalised to a total of ₹2.87 crore of which 730 officials have paid the penalty of about ₹66.63 lakh.
A total of 2,945 officials in the Urban Development Department were penalised by the KIC with the total amount adding up to ₹2.89 crore. Of this, 949 officials have paid ₹88.48 lakh.
The only exception is the Public Enterprises Department where one official was penalised ₹7,500, which has been recovered.
Dr. Mahesh Walwekar, one of the State Information Commissioners, questioned the need for orders if the departmental heads do not take them seriously or implement them. “What would other officers do when penalties are not recovered from erring officials? They too would be emboldened to deny information. There will be no fear of departmental action. The importance of the commission is lost if the orders are ignored with impunity.”
Ignoring notices about hearings
KIC sources said that a penalty is imposed, as in many cases officials tend to ignore the commission’s notices (three notices are issued) to appear for a hearing, or do not provide information despite the KIC’s order to do so. “These cases are brought before the KIC by RTI applicants after information is denied at the departmental level,” the sources said.
While some officials are learnt to have paid penalties from their pocket fearing that the penalties would be recorded in their service records, Dr. Walwekar said that, as per the law, penalties are to be recovered from their salary.

Exemptions in RTI Act should not shadow the right itself: CIC on denials without adequate reasons

Tribune India: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th April 2026.

While deciding an appeal against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), an applicant sought a copy of his own oath statement recorded during an inquiry into a corporate entity
The CIC emphasised that exemptions should not be interpreted in a way that would "shadow the very right itself".
Highlighting the importance of reasoned decision-making, the CIC, which serves as the highest adjudicating body for RTI-related complaints and appeals under the transparency law, stated that it is the responsibility of public authorities to justify any denial of information, and that merely citing exemption clauses is insufficient.
These observations were made while deciding an appeal against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), where an applicant sought a copy of his own oath statement recorded during an inquiry into a corporate entity.
The request was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the CIC found that the denial was issued "without any justification" and noted that no explanation was provided indicating how disclosure would hinder the investigation.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh reiterated that "the burden is on the public authority to demonstrate how the disclosure of such information would impede the investigation," warning against the routine use of exemption clauses. The CIC also underscored that merely reproducing statutory language is insufficient, pointing out that "the mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient" to deny information under the RTI Act.
Reinforcing the principle that transparency is the norm, the commission cited judicial precedents to stress that "access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception," adding that restrictions must be narrowly construed so as not to "shadow the very right itself."
The CIC noted the public authority's conduct, mentioning that the official "chose neither to attend the hearing nor to submit any substantial arguments in support of the denial of information."
On the merits of the case, the CIC observed that the information sought was personal to the applicant and held that it was "highly unlikely that it would impede any investigation or enquiry if the information is disclosed to him."
Accordingly, the CIC directed the public authority to provide the requested information within four weeks, reiterating that the denial of RTI requests must be justified with a clear and reasoned explanation in accordance with the law.
(CIC/MOCAF/A/2025/101542Inder Kumar Batta Vs. Ministry of Corporate Affairs)

आरटीआई में छूट प्रावधान का उल्लेख करना काफी नहीं : सी.आई.सी.

Hindustan: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th April 2026.

केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (सी.आई.सी.) ने कहा है कि आरटीआई अधिनियम के तहत जानकारी देने से मना करते समय केवल धारा 8(1) का उल्लेख करना पर्याप्त नहीं है। आयोग ने इस बात पर जोर दिया कि छूट का मतलब इस तरह से नहीं निकाला जाना चाहिए जिससे अधिकार पर ही असर पड़े। सी.आई.सी. ने कहा कि जानकारी देने से मना करने को सही ठहराना सार्वजनिक प्राधिकार की जिम्मेदारी है और सिर्फ छूट के प्रावधान का जिक्र करना काफी नहीं है।
ये बातें कॉर्पोरेट कार्य मंत्रालय के खिलाफ एक अपील पर फैसला करते समय कही गईं, जहां एक आवेदक ने एक कॉर्पोरेट निकाय की जांच के दौरान दर्ज किए गए अपने ही शपथ वक्तव्य की प्रति मांगी थी।
केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी (सी.पी.आई.ओ.) ने आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(एच) के तहत इस अनुरोध को स्वीकार करने से मना कर दिया। हालांकि, सी.आई.सी. ने पाया कि बिना किसी वजह के इनकार किया गया था। उसने यह भी कहा कि इस बारे में कोई सफाई नहीं दी गई कि जानकारी देने से जांच में कैसे रुकावट आएगी। बता दें कि आरटीआई अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 8(1) सूचना देने से छूट से संबंधित है, जो राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा, संप्रभुता, निजता और जांच प्रक्रियाओं की गोपनीयता बनाए रखने के लिए कुछ जानकारियों को साझा करने से रोकती है।

Exemptions in RTI Act should not shadow the right itself: CIC on denials without adequate reasons

The Print: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th April 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has voiced concern that “some public authorities continue to deny information without adequate reasons”, and asserted that merely citing exemption clauses in the RTI Act is insufficient. The CIC emphasised that exemptions should not be interpreted in a way that would “shadow the very right itself”. Highlighting the importance of reasoned decision-making, the CIC, which serves as the highest adjudicating body for RTI-related complaints and appeals under the transparency law, stated that it is the responsibility of public authorities to justify any denial of information, and that merely citing exemption clauses is insufficient. These observations were made while deciding an appeal against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), where an applicant sought a copy of his own oath statement recorded during an inquiry into a corporate entity.
The request was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the CIC found that the denial was issued “without any justification” and noted that no explanation was provided indicating how disclosure would hinder the investigation. Information Commissioner P R Ramesh reiterated that “the burden is on the public authority to demonstrate how the disclosure of such information would impede the investigation,” warning against the routine use of exemption clauses. The CIC also underscored that merely reproducing statutory language is insufficient, pointing out that “the mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient” to deny information under the RTI Act.
Reinforcing the principle that transparency is the norm, the commission cited judicial precedents to stress that “access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception,” adding that restrictions must be narrowly construed so as not to “shadow the very right itself.” The CIC noted the public authority’s conduct, mentioning that the official “chose neither to attend the hearing nor to submit any substantial arguments in support of the denial of information.” On the merits of the case, the CIC observed that the information sought was personal to the applicant and held that it was “highly unlikely that it would impede any investigation or enquiry if the information is disclosed to him.” Accordingly, the CIC directed the public authority to provide the requested information within four weeks, reiterating that the denial of RTI requests must be justified with a clear and reasoned explanation in accordance with the law. PTI MHS MHS MPL MPL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

4k encroachments around 154 protected monuments in Agra: RTI

The Times of India: Agra: Wednesday, 8^th April 2026.
A total of 3,916 illegal constructions has come up around 154 protected monuments in Agra over the past decade, but no fines have been imposed and no encroachers convicted, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) said in an RTI reply in 2023. However, in another RTI reply in 2025, this number rose marginally to 3,919.

Officials have largely limited their response to filing of FIRs, with little enforcement on the ground. The situation appears alarming in Tajganj area. From the eastern gate of the Taj Mahal to Asad Gali, illegal structures have mushroomed unchecked, with over 10 fresh complaints reported in just the past two months, between Feb and March this year, at Tajganj police station.
Also, encroachments continued unabated within the 200 m prohibited zone of Agra Fort. In Fatehpur Sikri, these have spread from Chaar Hissa to Hiran Minar, both falling within restricted areas. And, over the past three months alone, several FIRs have been registered in prohibited zones around Taj Mahal, Akbar and Mariam's tombs under relevant sections of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958.
Heritage activist Akash Vashishtha alleged ASI has been "misleading both the culture ministry and the public" by showing similar figures of illegal constructions in RTI replies in Sept 2023 and April 2025. "This suggests that fresh encroachments are being concealed rather than addressed," he said.
TOI reached out to the ASI superintending archaeologist of Agra circle, Smita S Kumar, but she did not respond. An ASI official of Agra circle said FIRs are routinely lodged against illegal constructions. "Enforcement powers lie with the authority. Police and district administration are required to act jointly, and effective legal follow-up is being ensured," he said.
The ongoing violations are seen despite stringent orders of the Supreme Court and provisions under the amended Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (2010).
The amendment mandated ASI to prepare detailed site plans and specific regulations for monument protection.
As per this Act, any new construction is completely prohibited within a 100 m radius of a protected monument. For the next 200 m, construction is allowed only with prior permission from the National Monuments Authority. Violations can result in imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh, or both.

IRCTC complies with CIC order, says RTI filed by rival bidder

Orissa POST: New Delhi: Wednesday, 8^th April 2026.
The Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) has said it has complied with the CIC order, which had directed it to furnish reasons for denying information to an RTI application seeking whether some vendors who had applied for cluster tenders had declared that they faced cases registered by CBI and ED.

In a statement Monday, the IRCTC said the Central Information Commission (CIC) directive has been complied with by giving a speaking reply to the RTI applicant.
“As the information sought by the applicant was exempted under 8 (d) of RTI Act, IRCTC, vide its reply 16/07/24, submitted that the information sought is exempted under RTI. Further, the matter went to Hon’ble CIC and Hon’ble CIC, vide order dated 07/01/26, advised IRCTC to provide a fresh speaking reply to the applicant. The same has been complied with by giving a speaking reply to the applicant,” it said.
The statement said, “it will also be not out of place here to inform that the applicant is an unsuccessful bidder and the matter concerns other participant bidders, thereby indicating the interrivalries”.
The CIC had directed the IRCTC to provide “cogent reasons” for denying the information, whether applicants who had applied for cluster tenders had declared that CBI and ED had registered cases against them.
“The Commission is of the considered view that a bare or mechanical reference to an exemption clause, without explaining its applicability to the information sought, does not constitute a valid or speaking reply under the RTI Act,” it said.
The CIC, which is highest adjudicating body to hear RTI-related complaints and appeals under the transparency law, said it is well settled that denial of information under the RTI Act must be supported by cogent reasons, and the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption squarely lies on the public authority.
“Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI application dated 11.06.2024 and provide a fresh speaking reply to the Appellant. The above directions should be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order,” the CIC said in its order.

Info panel fines ex-BDPO for ‘defying’ RTI orders City | Bharat Khanna

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 8^th April 2026.
Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on former block development and panchayat officer (BDPO) of Nabha in Patiala district for non-compliance in a Right to Information (RTI) case in Chandigarh.

The commission passed the order in connection with a complaint filed by Gurpreet Singh under the RTI Act, citing a prolonged pattern of what it called "deliberate and disrespectful" conduct by the officer.
According to the commission, the public information officer-cum-BDPO repeatedly failed to appear or respond to summons and notices on Feb 11, 2025, and on May 13. After the commission issued a formal show-cause notice, representatives appeared on July 29 but were "not aware of the facts" and did not submit a reply. At a recent hearing on March 12 this year, the commission recorded that again no one appeared and no reply to the notice was filed.
Expressing concern over what it termed a "defying attitude", the commission concluded that the PIO had "no respect for the orders of the commission".
The commission directed the drawing and disbursing officer in Patiala to deduct the Rs 25,000 penalty from the salary of former BDPO Nabha and deposit the amount into the state treasury under the specified RTI Act fee head.
It also recommended that the director of rural development and panchayats, Punjab, take necessary administrative action against the officer, and ordered both the former PIO-cum-BDPO, now transferred to SAS Nagar, and the current PIO to be personally present at the next hearing.
While the former PIO-cum-BDPO refused to comment, current in-charge Jatinder Singh said, "We will look into the matter thoroughly and take appropriate action against the other officials too, if found guilty, for not giving information."

RTI Act: A Powerful Right Losing Its Strength- By Aadil Manzoor

Brighter Kashmir: Srinagar: Wednesday, 8^th April 2026.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was hailed as one of the most transformative laws in India’s democratic journey. It was designed to empower citizens, promote transparency, and hold public authorities accountable. By granting every individual the legal right to access government information, the Act broke the long-standing culture of secrecy that had shielded inefficiency and corruption. For years, it stood as a powerful symbol of people’s voice—allowing ordinary citizens to question authority and demand answers.
In its early years, the RTI Act delivered remarkable results. It exposed corruption in public offices, brought irregularities to light, and helped countless citizens resolve issues related to pensions, ration cards, land records, and public services. It strengthened participatory democracy and proved that an informed citizenry is the strongest pillar of governance.
However, today, this powerful law is gradually losing its effectiveness. Delays in responses have become routine, with many authorities ignoring the legally mandated 30-day deadline. Applications are often met with vague replies, unnecessary transfers, or outright silence. This is not mere inefficiency—it is a denial of citizens’ rights.
Equally troubling is the lack of accountability. Officials who fail to comply with RTI provisions rarely face strict penalties. This culture of impunity weakens the law and discourages citizens from pursuing their requests. What should be a simple process often turns into a long, frustrating battle through appeals and complaints.
Even more alarming is the risk faced by RTI activists. Across the country, individuals seeking sensitive information have faced harassment, threats, and, in extreme cases, violence. This creates a climate of fear, where asking questions becomes a dangerous act. A democracy cannot survive if its citizens are afraid to seek the truth.
Moreover, lack of awareness continues to limit the reach of the RTI Act. Many people, especially in rural and marginalized communities, remain unaware of their rights and the process to file applications. This gap must be addressed if the law is to serve its true purpose.
The problem is not with the RTI Act itself, but with its implementation. Authorities must be made more responsive, and strict action must be taken against those who delay or deny information without valid reasons. Awareness campaigns and digital reforms can further strengthen access to information.
The RTI Act is not just a law—it is the backbone of transparent governance and a cornerstone of democracy. Weakening it would mean silencing the voice of the people. If India is to uphold the values of accountability and openness, the RTI Act must be protected, strengthened, and implemented in both letter and spirit.

Govt. says records on caste enumeration decision exempt under RTI

The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 8^th April 2026.
Cabinet Secretariat cites RTI Act provisions while withholding records related to inter-ministerial deliberations on caste enumeration in Census 2027

Image for the purpose of representation only. | Photo Credit: File

The Union government has stated that records of the Inter-Ministerial deliberations, inputs, and suggestions referred to in making the decision to enumerate caste in the 2027 Census are exempt from public disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Responding to a request for these records filed by The Hindu under the RTI Act, the Union Cabinet Secretariat said that these records were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the 2005 law. This section says the government is not obligated to disclose Cabinet papers, provided that “the matter is over” or “complete”; and provided that “the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken.”
On April 30, 2025, the Union government’s Press Information Bureau had posted a statement, saying, “Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has decided to include caste enumeration in the upcoming Census.”
On March 25 this year, responding to requests for information on records relied upon for this decision, the Cabinet Secretariat said, “The information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act.” Census 2027 kicked off on April 1, starting with the first phase, houselisting operations.
The Union government’s position on records relied upon for the decision to enumerate castes in this Census came even as officials of the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India have said that the method for enumerating castes has not yet been decided. The caste enumeration is scheduled to be part of the second phase of the Census, population enumeration, which is to be held next year.
In the request for information about records on the decision to include caste in the second phase, The Hindu had sought a list of Union Ministries and Departments from which the Cabinet Secretariat sought inputs, comments, or views before taking the decision. It had also specifically sought records of inputs received from the Law Ministry, Home Ministry, Statistics Ministry, the Ministries of Social Justice and Tribal Affairs, and the Office of the RGI and Census Commissioner of India.
Even as the method for caste enumeration is yet to be announced, there are discussions among activists, scholars, and community leaders about two possible methods. The first is to leave an open field in the Census form, what the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census did. The second is to compile a list of castes for people to select from, what Bihar’s caste-based survey did.
Regardless of which method is employed, scholars have also argued that a close-to-accurate enumeration would only be possible after extensive analyses of the data that are returned.

Hisar police arrest ‘RTI activist’ for Rs 1L extortion bid

The Tribune: Hisar: Monday, 6^th April 2026.

Hisar police have arrested a man, Manoj Sindhwani, who claimed to be an RTI activist, for allegedly attempting to extort Rs 1 lakh from a mobile shop owner in Ganesh Market in Hisar. The police laid a trap and caught him red-handed when the shop owner handed over the cash to him.
The owner, Mukesh, stated that a building was under construction in front of Sector 14, and the accused had been demanding money while threatening to file an application under the RTI Act and get the building sealed. He allegedly demanded Rs 1 lakh in exchange for not filing the RTI application.
Mukesh filed a complaint with the police, following which a police team laid a trap and caught the accused when the complainant handed over the money. The accused, a resident of Dev Vatika in Hisar, had previously been caught in a similar case of alleged extortion about nine months ago. He had allegedly extorted Rs 7,000 from an electronics trader, Anil Kumar, in Hansi’s Boga Ram Colony in a similar manner.
A police official said that the incident exposed the misuse of the RTI Act as a tool for extortion. As per the modus operandi, the accused would file RTI applications in matters requiring official permissions. Following such applications, departments would issue notices to the individuals concerned, who then faced the threat of their buildings being sealed by the authorities.

Rail Neer scam: CIC pulls up IRCTC for refusing information on RTI plea

Times of India: New Delhi: Monday, 6^th April 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) for denying information on an RTI plea seeking disclosure of whether bidders in railway tenders had declared links to the Rail Neer scam and related cases probed by central agencies, PTI reported.

The applicant had sought details on whether companies bidding for tenders disclosed any cases registered by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against them, including their alleged involvement in the 2015 Rail Neer scam.
RTI sought disclosure of CBI, ED cases
The RTI application specifically asked if bidders had declared that they were “accused in the famous Rail Neer scam” and that the CBI had “registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them”.
It also sought details on whether bidders disclosed that the ED had "registered a case under sections 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.
Further, the applicant asked if companies informed authorities about developments such as raids, cash seizures, and whether a “chargesheet” or “complaint” had been filed by the agencies.
CIC flags ‘mechanical’ denial by IRCTC
IRCTC denied the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which covers commercial confidence and trade secrets. The respondent officials maintained that they had “categorically informed the appellant” and that the first appellate authority upheld the reply.
However, the CIC found the response inadequate, noting it “merely states the exemption clause without providing any reasons or justification whatsoever”.
“A bare or mechanical reference to an exemption clause, without explaining its applicability to the information sought, does not constitute a valid or speaking reply under the RTI Act,” the commission said.
Emphasising that denial must be supported by “cogent reasons”, the CIC added that “the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption squarely lies on the public authority”.
Holding the reply deficient, the commission said it was “not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act” and directed IRCTC to revisit the application and issue a “fresh, reasoned reply”.

RTI Penalty Proceedings Are Between Commission and SPIO Alone — Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard: Kerala High Court

Lawyer E News: Kerala: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.

"The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the State Information Commission and the SPIO", Kerala High Court has ruled that an RTI complainant has no legal right to be heard before the State Information Commission decides whether to impose or drop penalty proceedings against a State Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 holding that such proceedings are exclusively a matter between the Commission and the delinquent officer.
Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed the writ petition filed by Raisa Eapen, who had challenged the Commission's order dropping penalty proceedings against the SPIO without furnishing her a copy of the officer's explanation or giving her an opportunity to rebut it.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had submitted a Form-6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking reclassification of her land. A circular dated December 24, 2023 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner directed that all Form-6 applications received on or before December 31, 2023 be included and disposed of at a Revenue Adalat held on February 17, 2024. Despite claiming full eligibility, the petitioner's application was excluded from the Adalat without any satisfactory explanation.
She then filed an RTI application dated May 18, 2024 before the SPIO at the Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi, seeking information on why her application was excluded. No reply was furnished within the statutory period of 30 days under the RTI Act. She accordingly preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission.
The Commission, finding that the SPIO had failed to furnish information within the prescribed time and had given false and misleading information, issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation as to why penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) should not be initiated. The SPIO responded claiming that the petitioner's Form-6 application was submitted only on January 8, 2024 after the cutoff date of December 31, 2023 and attributed the delay in providing information to election duty, staff transfers, and administrative delays. The Commission accepted this explanation and dropped further proceedings by its final order without hearing the petitioner or furnishing her a copy of the SPIO's reply.
Legal Issues
The central question before the Court was whether an RTI complainant or appellant possesses a right to be heard and to receive a copy of the SPIO's explanation in penalty proceedings initiated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission decides to impose or drop the penalty.
Court's Observations
On the Statutory Scheme Penalty Is Not for the Complainant
The Court undertook a careful reading of Sections 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, drawing a sharp distinction between the two. Section 19(8)(b) empowers the Commission to direct a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment suffered — a provision that inherently requires the complainant's participation to adjudicate the quantum of loss. Section 20(1), by contrast, empowers the Commission to impose a monetary penalty on the SPIO that goes directly to the State exchequer not to the complainant's pocket.
This distinction, the Court held, was decisive: "While the 'compensation' goes to the complainant, the 'penalty' goes to the State exchequer. The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission and the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be."
The first proviso to Section 20(1) the only express mandate in the provision regarding hearing requires exclusively that the SPIO be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. Nowhere, the Court noted, does the RTI Act require the Commission to hear the appellant in Section 20 proceedings.
On the Kerala State Information Commission Rules
The Court further examined Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006 governing the personal presence of the appellant. The Rule makes the appellant's appearance entirely optional the appellant "may at his discretion be present in person... or may opt not to be present." Even if the appellant chooses not to appear, the Commission must dispose of the appeal. This structural optionality, the Court held, reinforces the position that the complainant has no right to participate in penalty proceedings as such.
"The petitioner has no right to be heard in the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, unless permitted by the State Information Commission."
On the Show Cause Notice Being Prima Facie in Nature
The Court further clarified that a show cause notice issued by the Commission before imposing penalty is only prima facie in nature a preliminary satisfaction, not a final finding. If the Commission, upon examining the SPIO's explanation, finds it satisfactory, it is fully within its jurisdiction to drop the proceedings without conducting any further inquiry.
"The opinion formed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission at the stage of deciding the complaint or appeal and issuing a show cause notice is only prima facie in nature. If the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission finds that the explanation of the SPIO is satisfactory, the Commission can drop the penalty proceedings."
The Commission's final order accepting the SPIO's explanation that the delay was attributable to election duty, staff transfers, and administrative transitions was therefore not erroneous or perverse, and did not call for interference under Article 226.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to quash the Commission's order or direct a fresh hearing, holding that the petitioner had no right to be heard in Section 20(1) proceedings unless specifically permitted by the Commission, and that the Commission's finding was neither perverse nor illegal.
(Download Copy of the Judgment)

Alok Nagar, Rajesh Bhatt appointed State Information Commissioners

The Hitavada: Bhopal: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.
A State Government has appointed two new State Information Commissioners. According to a gazette notification issued by the General Administration Department on Thursday, the former Registrar of Firms and Societies, Alok Nagar and an All India Radio Officer Rajesh Bhatt have been appointed as State Information Commissioners. Following these appointments, it is expected that the disposal of pending RTI cases within the Commission will accelerate.

According to the notification issued by the Government, both appointments have been made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The tenure of the newly-appointed Information Commissioners will extend for a period of three years from the date they assume office, or until they attain the age of 65 years. ( whichever condition is met first). As the commission is facing with piling up of cases due to shortage of staff, it is expected with these appointments things will become smooth. Although, State Information Commission as per the provision has limited to provide information and cannot take any action. The oath-taking ceremony for both newly-appointed Information Commissioners is expected to be held shortly. The names were decided in a meeting of the selection committee headed by Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and other members, including Leader of Opposition in state assembly Umang Singhar and other members.
That has got final approval from honourable the Governor. Currently, the Commission comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and three Information Commissioners. With the addition of two new commissioners, it is anticipated that the resolution of pending cases related to RTI will be expedited. As per the law, any vacancy in the State Information Commission has to be filled within six months from the date of vacancy. Madhya Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Information Commissioner (IC) and State Information Commissioner’s salaries, allowances and other service terms and conditions are equivalent to a Judge of the Supreme Court. Along with Yadav, the State Government on Tuesday also appointed three other Information Commissioners- Umashankar Pachouri (educationist), Vandana Gandhi (social worker) and Omkar Nath (retired judge). Two years ago, there was demand to expedite the process of appointment of Chief Information Commissioner as the post had remained vacant for five months. Subsequently, the State Government made four appointments. Ex-IPS Vijay Yadav was appointed as Chief Information Commissioner while Umashankar Pachouri (educationist), Vandana Gandhi (social worker) and Omkar Nath (retired judge) became Information-Commissioners.

Sabarimala gold theft not isolated? RTI reveals multiple temple losses in Kerala

Mathrubhumi: Kerala: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.
RTI disclosures reveal missing gold from several Kerala temples, highlighting lapses in inventory records and raising concerns over accountability and oversight.

Gold-clad plates being removed from outside the sanctum sanctorum for scientific examination as part of the probe into the alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala | File photo: PTI

Gold has gone missing from several major temples across Kerala, in incidents comparable to the alleged losses reported at Sabarimala Temple, according to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The disclosures indicate that gold items were lost from Sreevaraham Temple, Thiruvananthapuram, Pullu Bhagavathi Temple and Thripunithura Poornathrayeesan Temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board.
At Pullu Bhagavathi Temple, which falls under the Thrissur group of the Cochin Devaswom Board, seven gold chains weighing a total of 40.50 grams were reported missing. At Poornathrayeesan Temple, 663 milligrams of gold from the crown were lost, while Sreevaraham Temple reported the disappearance of two heritage gold chains weighing 7.750 grams.
The RTI response also noted that many Devaswom temples do not maintain a proper Thiruvabharanam (temple ornaments) register, raising concerns about inventory tracking and accountability.
The information was provided by the Public Information Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board’s Thrissur group to Kochi-based RTI activist K Govindan Namboothiri.
Separately, citing RTI documents, the activist said that of the ₹46.53 crore sanctioned by the Central government under the Swadesh Darshan Scheme for Sabarimala development, only ₹36.27 crore has been utilised so far.