Right to information to marginalised a priority for new state RTI chief

Meghalaya Monitor: Shillong: Wednesday, April 30, 2025.
The state Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Rebecca Suchiang, who assumed office on Thursday, wants to reach out to the marginalised so that the right to information is accessible to them.

“I intend to strengthen outreach to the rural and marginalised communities so that the right to information is not just available but is accessible to all”, she said in response to a question on her priorities.
Suchiang, who is the first woman RTI chief, said another task is to dispose of pending cases.
Ensuring transparency and accountability besides bridging the gap between the citizens and the government, timely disposal of complaints and appeals, improving public awareness on RTI Act and enhancing institutional capacity through training are other priorities.
She was sworn in as the CIC at a ceremony held at Raj Bhavan by Governor CH Vijayashankar, in the presence of state government officials and the CIC’s family members.
The function started with the National Anthem, followed by reading of the official notification by Commissioner Secretary, Department of Arts and Culture, FR Kharkongor, who announced Suchiang’s appointment.
She will serve a three-year term.
Earlier, she had held the post of Director General of Meghalaya Administrative Training Institute after she retired as Chief Secretary.

Deliver records to kid’s dad: HC overrules that RTI doesn’t cover pvt schools in case

Times of India: Raipur: Wednesday, April 30, 2025.
Overruling the argument that private schools do not come under the ambit of the RTI act, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed a Ambikapur school to provide copies of a student's transfer certificate and admission form to the child's biological father within 15 days.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad issued the order after the father, Rahul Gupta, moved court citing denial of information by the school despite multiple applications and complaints.
The school's counsel had also argued in court that the application was denied due to a dispute between the child's mother and father.
The court held that the petitioner, as the biological father, had the right to access his child's educational records and directed the Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School, Ambikapur, to deliver the documents to his provided address, email, and mobile number, overruling the school's objection that private schools are not covered under the RTI Act.
The order of the Single Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad came in response to a petition filed by the father, Rahul Gupta, who sought copies of his son's Dakhil-Kharij (transfer certificate) and admission form. The petitioner stated that he applied to the CBSE-affiliated school on April 27, 2024, for the documents but received no response. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, with the district education office, Surguja, on April 29, 2024. However, this request was denied on the grounds that private schools are not covered under the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a first appeal to the district education officer (DEO) and first appellate authority, citing a previous letter from the office and decisions of the Central Information Commission indicating that private schools are indeed covered under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the RTI Act. The first appellate authority upheld the denial.
The petitioner then filed complaints with the district collector of Surguja, the chief minister, the secretary of school education, and the district collector. The DEO, acting on the chief minister's office's response, directed the petitioner to communicate with the school. On Oct 25, 2024, the petitioner reapplied to Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School, with an intimation to the DEO, but the school again denied the request on Oct 29, 2024.
However, the high court, considering the petitioner's right to information as the biological father, directed the school to provide the requested information within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The court also instructed the school to provide the information to the petitioner's address, email, and mobile number as listed in the petition.

374 Anti-Corruption Investigations Stalled In Maharashtra Over Pending Sanctions, Reveals RTI

Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Tuesday, 29 April 2025.

Under the amended Prevention of Corruption Act (2018), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) must obtain prior approval even to initiate preliminary investigations against public servants a measure originally intended to shield honest officials but now criticized as a tool for protecting the corrupt.
A Right to Information (RTI) query filed by activist Jeetendra Ghadge has exposed a worrying lapse in Maharashtra’s anti-corruption framework, revealing that sanctions for 374 investigations under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act remain pending with the state government. This delay has effectively paralyzed numerous inquiries into alleged misconduct across various departments.
Notably, 371 out of the 374 pending sanctions have been stalled for over 120 days. Under the amended Prevention of Corruption Act (2018), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) must obtain prior approval even to initiate preliminary investigations against public servants—a measure originally intended to shield honest officials but now criticized as a tool for protecting the corrupt.
“The ACB was designed to tackle corruption, yet these numbers reflect a complete erosion of its effectiveness,” said RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge. “With hundreds of sanctions languishing for months, the credibility of anti-corruption initiatives is at serious risk.”
A department-wise breakdown shows the Urban Development Department leading with 88 pending cases, followed by the Revenue Department with 60, and the Rural Development Department with 52 cases awaiting clearance.
Adding to concerns, the ACB has declined to reveal how many sanction requests have been outrightly denied by government departments, further clouding the transparency of the process. Without the necessary sanction under Section 17A, the ACB cannot legally proceed with investigations unless fresh evidence emerges or a court order intervenes. Attempts to contact ACB Additional Director General (ADG) Niket Kaushik for a reaction were unsuccessful.

Maharashtra fills up all vacant information commissioner posts

Times of India: Mumbai: Tuesday, 29 April 2025.
Newly appointed chief information commissioner Rahul Pande on Monday said that the biggest challenge before him will be to dispose of all the 79,392 appeals before the information commissioners across the state in a time-bound manner.

Along with the swearing-in of Pande on April 21, the state govt has filled up all the vacant posts of information commissioners. The post of CIC was lying vacant for a prolonged period. The posts of information commissioners for Amravati, Nagpur, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Nashik were lying vacant for a period ranging from one to three years.
As per the notification issued on Monday, Pande will be CIC for Mumbai (HQ), Pradip Vyas for Mumbai, Shekhar Channe for Konkan, Makrand Ranade for Pune, Bhupendra Gurav for Nashik, Ravindra Thakre for Amravati, Prakash Indalkar for Sambhaji Nagar and Gajanan Nimdeo for Nagpur. Earlier, Ranade was holding additional charge for Sambhajinagar, Gurav was holding additional charge for Nagpur and Channe was holding additional charge for Amravati.
Pande was first appointed information commissioner for Nagpur on Oct 7, 2021 to Oct 6, 2024, then he was given additional charge for Sambhajinagar and now, he has taken over as CIC on April 21. "RTI is a landmark legislation for providing justice to common man. As a CIC, we will ensure that the legislation is implemented in letter and spirit. We expect that once the first appeal is filed, it should be disposed of within 90 days. Even the Supreme Court has expressed the view that the appeals cannot be kept in abeyance for a prolonged period, otherwise there will be massive delay in providing justice to people," Pande said.
In his first tenure as Nagpur and Sambhajinagar information commissioner, Rahul Pande had given landmark orders, which were upheld by the high court. In Sambhajinagar, Pandey found that a few persons were filing vexatious petitions with an objective to harass the district and state administration. "Pande took note of such appeals and disposed them of as per the provisions of the RTI Act," a colleague of the CIC said.
Veteran bureaucrat Suresh Joshi was the first CIC, from April 12, 2005, to April 11, 2010. He was followed by Ratnakar Gaikwad and Sumit Mullick. Before the appointment of Pande, retired forest officer Sumit Vishwas was acting CIC. The tenure of Gaikwad was marked by landmark orders.

No disclosure, no caveat : Opinion

Deccan Herald: Editorial Page: Tuesday, 29 April 2025.
DPDP rules can allow the term “personal” to be interpreted wrongly, to deny information under RTI

Significant concerns have been raised over the adverse impact the Digital Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, might have on the working of a provision of the Right to Information (RTI) law.
The DPDP Act will soon come into effect with the notification of its rules. Section 44(3) of the Act intends to change Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, exempting all “personal information” from disclosure.
This means that any public information that also contains “personal information” will no longer be made public. Under Section 8(1)(j), government bodies can withhold “information which relates to personal information” if its disclosure is not related to public interest or results in an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
However, the information has to be provided if an appellate authority decides that there is public interest in its disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) is now sought to be amended so that information can be withheld as “personal” without any safeguards and exceptions.
The right to privacy and the right to information are fundamental rights. While the right to privacy was defined so by the Supreme Court in the K S Puttaswamy judgement in 2017, the right to information is part of the right to speech and expression. Both are essential democratic rights; they are not derogatory to each other and one should not be pitched against the other. Section 44(3) tries to do that. The term “personal” is bound to be interpreted wrongly and too widely to cover matters of public interest, and to deny information to those who seek it under the RTI law. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rights to privacy and transparency must be reconciled in law.
The DPDP Act itself does undermine the citizens’ right to privacy. Section 17(2)(a) of the Act allows the government to exempt its agencies from the law’s provisions and gives them access to citizens’ personal data. This violates the citizen’s rights and the government’s responsibility to ensure the protection of personal data. The Act also exempts any State authority from deletion of data after use. This allows the state agencies to store personal data indefinitely a provision that can be misused against individuals. The government has weakened the RTI steadily through various legal measures and its actions in the past over many years. It should remove the provision in the DPDP Act amending the RTI Act and ensure that the right to privacy is not affected by other provisions of the Act.

Over 80% high schools, intermediate colleges in Uttarakhand do not have a principal: RTI reply

Vartha Bharati: Pithoragarh: Monday, 28 April 2025.

More than 80 per cent of high schools and intermediate colleges in Uttarakhand are functioning without principals, according to a reply to an RTI application.
The data was provided by the secondary education department in response to the RTI application filed by Pankaj Bhatt, a resident of the Tildhukri area here.
According to the data, 831 of the 910 sanctioned posts of principals are vacant in the state's high schools. Of these sanctioned posts, 753 are for men and 78 for women.
Pauri district tops the list with 109 of the 116 sanctioned posts vacant.
In intermediate colleges, 1,180 of the 1,248 sanctioned posts of principals are vacant. Out of the total sanctioned posts, 1,043 are for men and 97 for women, the data stated.
It showed Tehri district has the highest number of vacancies with 172 of the 183 sanctioned posts vacant.

India needs to agree to disclose defence MoU with Sri Lanka: Cabinet Spokesman

Economy Next: Sri Lanka: Monday, 28 April 2025.
Sri Lanka needs Indian consensus to disclose the contents of the Defence Cooperation pact signed during the recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa said.

Sri Lanka signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India on Defence Cooperation, but President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government has yet to disclose the content of the pact.
The Defence pact was signed amid continuous Indian pressure to stop Chinese research vessels coming to Sri Lanka citing they are a threat to the security of the Indian Ocean region.
“On certain contents, we need mutual agreement to disclose the information,” Cabinet Spokesman Jayatissa, also the Minister of Media and Health, told reporters at the post-Cabinet media briefing on Tuesday, responding to a query on whether the defence pact had banned Chinese research vessels coming to Sri Lankan waters.
“In future, we will be submitting them to the parliament. It will take some time. Definitely in the future.”
“These are only Memorandum of Understanding. We will disclose about them to the parliament in the future. If it is difficult to wait, some of the information could be requested through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.”
When requested information by EconomyNext from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the designated RTI officer said the information about the Defence Cooperation “does not fall under the purview” of the Ministry.
Minister Jayatissa said the government has signed the MoUs with responsibility.
“They are not decisions taken by politicians collectively. Respective ministries, AG Departments, all the related institutions are consulted and discussed in length for months and some were amended some new clauses were added. Based on consensus after all these we have arrived at these MoUs,” he said.
“Next steps are going to be taken based on these MoUs. For some we need to establish mechanisms to implement the MoUs.”

RTI info reveals gaps in execution of Navi Mumbai CCTV network project

Times of India: Navi Mumbai: Monday, 28 April 2025.
Citizens have expressed their discontent over the prolonged delay by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) in completing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) installation project across the city. Social activists are questioning the civic administration's competency regarding implementation of this vital security initiative. Alert Citizen Forum has identified deficiencies through information obtained via the Right to Information (RTI) Act concerning the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the city.

In 2022, NMMC awarded a contract worth Rs 150 crore to a corporate house for installing 1,500 sophisticated CCTV cameras, acknowledging their importance for public safety, traffic control, women's security and law enforcement. However, the project remains unfinished after three years due to poor execution by the civic authorities, say social activists.
Recent information obtained through an RTI application filed on November 6, 2024, revealed substantial gaps in project execution. While 1,300 cameras were installed, only 703 are functional. Forum members' inspection discovered merely 410 working cameras, with others disabled due to fibre cable damage during road works in Vashi. The lack of proper utility ducts, which are standard infrastructure in developed countries, has resulted in frequent road digging.
Forum member Sanjay Sonawane states this practice, reportedly maintained for financial benefits, has led to CCTV infrastructure damage and cable theft. NMMC Commissioner Kailas Shinde acknowledged that cable theft in Vashi rendered numerous cameras non-operational, affecting the entire area's surveillance. Shinde confirmed the contractor has been instructed to restore services promptly.
The NMMC jurisdiction, with over 1.5 million residents, requires effective real-time monitoring. Sudhir Dani, Forum head, notes that poor coordination between police and municipal authorities has resulted in limited surveillance capability, with police having access to only four monitoring computers. Activists emphasise that despite advanced monitoring facilities at municipal headquarters, integrated surveillance operations are urgently needed.
"Keeping in mind the unique importance of CCTV for the tax-paying citizens of Navi Mumbai, a representation will be made to the NMMC Commissioner to ensure that the CCTV project is 100% operational and, most importantly, error-free, and to inquire about the difficulties faced in completing the CCTV project, and the necessary follow-up will be done accordingly," said Forum member Arun Kagle, noting the civic body's significant failure in implementing this essential security project.

‘Data protection Act puts journalism in danger’

The Hindu: Hyderabad: Sunday, April 27, 2025.

Consultation campaign organised by the National Campaign
 for People’s Right to Information, in association with
Press Cub, Hyderabad on Digital Personal Data Protection
Act 2023 on Saturday. | Photo Credit: By Arrangement

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 will rob journalists of their basic right to report and publish if the Act is opertionalised, said Anjali Bharadwaj, Amruth Johri and Rakesh Dubbudu of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
Addressing a consultation campaign organized in association with Press Cub Hyderabad here on Saturday, they explained the dangers that lie ahead for journalistic community in free expression of the issues concerning the society.
As per the Act, the journalists cannot collect personal information and even if they collect they cannot disseminate the same in any form without the consent of the people whose personal information is collected. The new Act doesn’t exempt journalists though the earlier drafts of the Act exempted the journalists from this purview.
They said any violation of the Act would lead to fines up to ₹500 crore. Moreover, only the government has the right to exempt any organization. There is a fear that media organisations and independent journalists questioning government acts can be terrorized while media houses supporting government narratives can be exempted from the violations.
They also explained that the Editors Guild wrote to the Central government expressing their reservations over certain sections of the Act but the government has not responded so far. The Opposition Parties also sent a letter to the Ministry with 130 MPs signing the letter on this ‘draconian law’ but the government is silent.
The danger is not only for journalists but also people involved in the Right to Information Act as their activities will be hampered due to the stringent sections preventing seeking of personal information of the officers concerned.
Press Club Hyderabad General Secretary R. Ravikanth Reddy, Vice President C. Vanaja, EC members V. Bapu Rao, Padmavathi and Tigulla Srinivas and senior journalists were present.

CIC Orders ₹50,000 Compensation To Retired RPF Employee For Harassment Over Delayed Medical Reimbursement Response

Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Sunday, April 27, 2025.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Public Authority to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a retired employee of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) B N Jogadankar, for causing him mental agony and harassment suffered due to delayed and inadequate responses to his Right to Information (RTI) application regarding his medical reimbursement claim.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Public Authority to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a retired employee of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) B N Jogadankar, for causing him mental agony and harassment suffered due to delayed and inadequate responses to his Right to Information (RTI) application regarding his medical reimbursement claim.
Meanwhile the CIC has given a time of four weeks to the Public information officer (PIO) to give written explanation as to why a compensation of Rs. 50,000 should not be awarded to Jogadankar.
The case arose when Jogadankar, a retired employee a resident of Gulbarga, filed an RTI application on November 3, 2023, seeking details about the approval and disbursement status of his medical reimbursement claim amounting to Rs 1,09,016, deposited in the DPO/SUR office on September 14, 2023.
However, in its reply dated November 8, 2023, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected the request, claiming that the information sought did not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal on November 17, 2023. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO’s response on November 21, 2023. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Commission through a second appeal.
During the hearing, the appellant, appearing via video conference, argued that the CPIO’s reply was evasive and misleading, even though he had eventually received partial payment. He highlighted that, with no railway hospital within a 100-km radius, he had no choice but to seek treatment at an empanelled private hospital, yet his reimbursement claims were delayed and substantially reduced without proper justification. He requested compensation for the hardship faced.
The PIO, admitted during the hearing that complete information was only provided at the second appeal stage. The latest information shared by the respondent confirmed that the appellant’s claim had been sanctioned for Rs 61,807 on July 13, 2024, forwarded to the concerned departments for payment, and was cleared by the accounts office on August 19, 2024.
The Commission, after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, observed serious lapses on part of the Respondent Public Authority. It noted that the appellant had to struggle for basic information about his own reimbursement and face arbitrary deductions amounting to nearly 50% of his claim, in addition to suffering from long delays.
Criticizing the misuse of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to deny straightforward information, the Commission remarked that the appellant had to “run from pillar to post” to access what was rightfully his. Furthermore, it took cognizance of the broader issue raised by the appellant regarding the absence of government healthcare facilities for retirees in his locality.

New State CIC Rahul Pande to focus on RTI awareness

Times of India: Nagpur: Sunday, April 27, 2025.

Senior journalist from Nagpur and Maharashtra's newly appointed Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Rahul Pande, has said that his focus will be on creating greater awareness about the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Governor C P Radhakrishnan administered the oath of office to Pande at a ceremony held at Raj Bhavan in Mumbai earlier this week, along with newly appointed state information commissioners Ravindra Thakare, Prakash Indalkar, and Gajanan Nimdev. Thakare and Nimdev also hail from Nagpur.
In an exclusive conversation with TOI, Pande emphasised that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for empowering citizens, but its awareness remains largely confined to activists and politicians. "Common people must realise the importance of RTI. Journalists, too, need focused training to use it effectively in their reporting," he said.
To bridge this gap, the Information Commission will soon launch extensive public awareness programmes and special training sessions for journalists across Maharashtra. "We want RTI to become a mass movement, not remain restricted to a few," Pande added.
He also noted that with no vacancies left in the Commission, the pendency of RTI cases is expected to drop significantly, reaffirming the Commission's commitment to faster grievance redressal.
A key area of focus under Pande's leadership will be sensitising the younger generation about their rights under the RTI Act. The Commission plans to collaborate with NCC and NSS units to spread awareness. Government offices and schools will also be actively engaged as part of this outreach initiative.
Maharashtra had been without a CIC since April 2023. Pande's appointment is for a three-year term. Earlier, he served as the information commissioner for the Nagpur division from October 2021 to 2024. During his tenure, he also held additional charge of the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Amravati divisions, gaining extensive administrative experience within the Commission.

Arunachal govt buildings in wildlife zone without green nod: RTI records - ByDamien Lepcha

Hindustan Times: Itanagar: Sunday, April 27, 2025.
The revelation came via an RTI filed by activist S Loda, seeking details from 1978 to date on legal status, biodiversity, construction, and ecological impact in Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary

The Legislative Assembly building at Itanagar
(arunachalplan.gov.in)

The civil secretariat and the state legislative assembly the power centres of Arunachal Pradesh were allegedly constructed without obtaining mandatory environmental clearances, despite being located within the legally notified boundaries of the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary (IWS), according to official records accessed through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The revelation emerged in response to an RTI filed by environmental activist and advocate S Loda, which sought details from 1978 to the present regarding the legal status, biodiversity, construction activities, and ecological impacts within IWS.
The reply from the office of the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden, Naharlagun, confirmed that neither the state secretariat nor the assembly complex received clearance, as required under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The RTI response further states that no construction permission or environmental clearance has been issued for any building within the sanctuary boundaries from 1980 to now a period that covers all major administrative infrastructure expansion in the Itanagar Capital Region.
The Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary was formally notified on February 20, 1978, covering approximately 140.8 square kilometres. The RTI response included certified copies of the original notification and subsequent amendments but confirmed that the sanctuary’s legal status under the Wildlife Protection Act remains intact.
The secretariat was sanctioned in 2009-10 and was dedicated to the people on February 15, 2018 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while the assembly was inaugurated by the then President of India Ram Nath Kovind a few months earlier on November 19, 2017.
Maps enclosed with the reply show that large portions of the capital’s urban expansion including the state assembly, civil secretariat, Indira Gandhi Park, and areas around Ganga Lake (Gekar Sinyik) fall within the sanctuary limits.
When specifically asked about the legality of the establishment of the Itanagar Municipal Corporation and the 13th ST Assembly Constituency within the sanctuary, the department responded unequivocally: “Not legal.”
The Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden’s office in its reply also admitted that it has no records of forest land diversion for administrative or construction purposes within IWS, nor does it possess any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports related to major infrastructure development inside the sanctuary. No records of compensatory afforestation or official objections raised against these constructions were found either.
Despite the legal significance of the sanctuary, no scientific studies or surveys have been undertaken to assess the degradation of critical wildlife habitats, fragmentation of wildlife corridors, or loss of forest cover.
Key environmental indicators such as reduction in effective habitat area, fragmentation of corridors, disruption of seasonal migration routes and degradation of water sources and wetlands were all marked as “Not Done” in the department’s response.
The impact on the sanctuary’s hydrology, such as altered drainage patterns or contamination of waterholes, also remains undocumented.
Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary was once home to a thriving population of Indian elephants, clouded leopards, slow loris, wild dogs, and over 50 species of birds and reptiles, many of which are classified as “threatened.” An official annexure of endangered species submitted with the RTI reply details an alarming decline, with frequent sightings becoming increasingly rare due to human encroachment.
According to the India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023, forest cover in Arunachal Pradesh accounts for 78.67% of the state’s total geographical area. However, other sources, such as Testbook, place the figure slightly higher at 80.30%. The ISFR 2023 also highlights a concerning decline, noting that the state lost approximately 549 square kilometers of forest cover between 2021 and 2023.
Speaking to Hindustan Times on the condition of anonymity, a senior forest officer revealed that not just the Civil Secretariat and the State Legislative Assembly, but a majority of both government and private infrastructure in Itanagar fall within the notified area of the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary.
“There were only about four villages when the Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary was officially notified in 1978. No separate land was earmarked for Itanagar to serve as the state capital. However, after Arunachal Pradesh attained statehood in 1987, the infrastructure boom began,” he said.
Over time, the Civil Secretariat, the State Legislative Assembly, and other major government establishments were constructed within the sanctuary limits, he added.
The officer clarified that the Forest Department is merely the custodian of the land and does not have the authority to notify or de-notify any wildlife sanctuary or forest land.
“The government is aware of the situation, and several high-level meetings have already taken place on the matter. It is important to understand that the Land Management Department is now the user agency. The government must file an interlocutory application before the Supreme Court and seek rationalization for the existing land use and any future expansion,” the officer said.

‘Public interest should be prioritised in case of information requested under RTI’

Times of India: Varanasi: Sunday, April 27, 2025.

State Information Commissioner Swatantra Prakash held a review meeting here on Saturday with public information officers and first appellate authorities from all departments regarding prompt resolution of pending cases in the district under the Right to Information Act-2005.
He said that while old pending cases were resolved swiftly at commission level, a lack of awareness at the district level often leads to unresolved cases, creating doubt among people that needs to be addressed.Therefore, cases should not be kept pending without reason, and their resolution within the stipulated time should be ensured. "RTI requests should never be kept pending and must be responded to within 30 days. If the information is extensive or requires inspection, a time should be set for it. Public information is the right of the people, and it is the officials' duty to provide it on time," he stated. Providing a detailed information about the RTI Act and its legal aspects, the commissioner explained the difference between appeals and complaints.
The commissioner also said that officials should have a fundamental understanding of the RTI Act. Public interest should be prioritised in the context of information requested under RTI. A register should be maintained with complete details regarding information requested under the Right to Information.

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act and the Idea of Transparency : By Raj Krishna & Alok Kumar

SCC Online: Delhi: Saturday, April 26, 2025.

India’s history is replete with examples of whistleblowers. Over the years, many people in our nation have died while attempting to reveal the system’s poor governance. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act was introduced by the Indian Parliament in 2014 in an effort to prevent similar regrettable incidents. Nevertheless, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 has not yet been implemented. Additionally, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act of 2014’s detractors claim that the law infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights. Because of this, the law has already generated controversy before it was even passed. The act of an employee or other stakeholder concerned revealing information regarding unethical or unlawful behaviour occurring within an organisation is known as whistleblowing. A whistleblower is someone who discloses information about an individual or group involved in illegal action. As previously mentioned, India has seen several attacks against its whistleblowers. An engineer by the name of Satyendra Dubey was killed in 2003 after he revealed corruption within the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). A few years later, Shanmugam Manjunath, an employee of Indian Oil Corporation, was killed for exposing the fuel tampering scheme. As a result, it was believed that robust and efficient laws protecting whistleblowers were necessary
It is important to remember that the Law Commission of India suggested a whistleblower law in 2001 in order to address the issue of corruption in the country. Consequently, the Indian Government issued a resolution in 2004 called the “Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution (PIDPIR)”. This resolution gave the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) the authority to respond to whistleblower allegations. Furthermore, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission’s 2007 Report suggested that in order to protect whistleblowers, a specific law should be enacted. Interestingly, the Indian Government signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption in 2005. This Convention attempts to safeguard witnesses and experts from reprisals and to make it easier for public officials to disclose wrongdoing.
Ultimately, the Union Government presented a Bill to the Lok Sabha in August 2010 that would protect anyone who reveal wrongdoing in Government organisations. The Bill was also forwarded to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Law, and Justice (the Standing Committee) in September 2010 for in-depth discussion. The general public was encouraged to submit comments to the Committee. It is interesting to note that the Bill included many of their recommendations as well. The Lok Sabha finally approved the legislation on 27-12-2011 and the Bill was tabled in the Rajya Sabha in 2012. Eventually on 21-2-2014, it was enacted following a number of deliberations. On 9-5-2014, the President signed the Bill into law. However, the Act has not gone into effect as the present-day National Defence Academy (NDA) administration has not yet made a decision regarding the implementation of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014:
Primary attributes With seven chapters and thirty-one sections, the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 is a minor piece of legislation. Chapter I5 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 addresses the legislation’s applicability. The entire territory of India is covered under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014. It is important to remember, though, that Section 2 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 20146 specifies that the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 does not apply to employees and officers of the Special Protection Group, which has been established by the Special Protection Group Act of 1988.
According to the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, anyone, even public servants, can complain to a competent authority about corruption or abuse of authority committed against a public servant. Section 3 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 provides a detailed definition of the word “competent authority”.
Public interest disclosure is covered in Chapter II9 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014. The Official Secrets Act of 1923 is superseded by Section 4 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, which permits the complaint to disclose information in the public interest before a competent body even if doing so violates the later statute and does not jeopardise national sovereignty. Chapter III of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 addresses the competent authority’s authority and duties. The types of matters that the competent authority can and cannot consider are explained in this chapter. In contrast, Chapter IV addresses the process that a competent authority must follow while looking into a subject. Additionally, Chapter V of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 offers some protection to prevent the complainants from becoming victims. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, however, forbids anonymous complaints; that is, no action will be done against the complainant if they do not reveal their identity to the appropriate authority. Additionally, you have a limitation of seven years to file a complaint.
Chapter VI of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 addresses penalties that the competent authority may administer16. In addition, Section 20 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 stipulates that anyone who feels wronged by a competent authority ruling has sixty days from the date of the order to file an appeal with the relevant High Court.
Chapter VII of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 addresses the miscellaneous provisions. According to Section 23 of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, the competent authority is required to compile an annual report detailing the performance of its operations and submit it to the Federal Government or State Governments, which will then present it to each House of Parliament or State Legislature, as applicable.
Discrepancies in the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014
There is no provision for anonymous complaints in the Whistle Blowers Protection Act of 2014. According to the Act, a complaint would not be considered unless the complainant discloses their identity. The authors believe that this is against Articles 1420 and 2121 of the Constitution22. We have seen other whistleblowers lose their lives in the past while opposing the unscrupulous system. Therefore, it becomes crucial that the whistleblowers’ identities remain confidential.
In the 2017 case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India23 the Supreme Court noted that the right to privacy is a component of the right to life and personal liberty, which are protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Privacy is the State or circumstance of not having one’s actions or decisions interfered with or brought to the attention of the public. It has been said that the right to be left alone includes the right to be in this state. The ability to isolate oneself and prevent others from invading it in any way appears to be fundamental to privacy. These intrusions can be visual or bodily, and they can occur directly, through tools, equipment, or technical help, or they might be in the form of peering over someone’s shoulder or eavesdropping. Even so, the Supreme Court subsequently made it clear that the right to privacy is not unconditional and can only be violated in very specific situations. A violation of someone’s right to privacy must commensurate with the desired outcome. Even though it is not required, the complainants identity is revealed in the current case. It is also important to remember that in these situations, the person who has been the target of the complaint and the person who has not are not on equal footing.
The Supreme Court noted in Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India24 decision that Article 14 guarantees equality among equals and that its purpose is to shield those in comparable circumstances from discriminating treatment. It implies that everyone in a similar situation will receive the same treatment in terms of the rights granted and the obligations placed upon them. On the other hand, if people in different situations are treated equally, prejudice may ensue. In order to distinguish individuals or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group, the differential treatment must be based on an understandable differentia. Additionally, the differentia must have a logical connection to the goal that the statute in question is trying to accomplish. Additionally, Section 1325 grants the competent authority discretionary authority over the revelation of the complainants’ identities, which the authorities may readily abuse. Therefore, it is crucial that an Impartial Committee investigate it rather than the appropriate authority, which is made up of members of the same organisation.
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 in various jurisdictions
United Kingdom Whistleblowers were not historically encouraged in the United Kingdom. It was regarded as a betrayal of confidence. However, following a few Court rulings, the perception shifted. In Initial Services Ltd. v. Putterill26 the Queen’s Bench noted that the law permits an exception to the rule that confidential information should not be published when there is wrongdoing of a kind that should be revealed to others for the benefit of the public. The revelation must, however, be made to a person who is related and interested to the same.
The Queen’s Bench further ruled in Lion Laboratories Ltd. v. Evans27 that the justification for disclosing the private information can be a just cause and greater good. The Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 was finally passed by the British Parliament in 1998. The purpose of this legislation, as enacted by the Parliament, was to protect those who notify others about improper management in their departments or offices. Three types of disclosure are allowed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The first is an internal disclosure to the employer; the second is a regulatory disclosure to a designated individual; and the third is a more general disclosure that may be made to the media, the police, Members of Parliament, and others.
Anonymous complaint procedures were not covered by British law. Nonetheless, the European law places a strong emphasis on the need for complainants to remain anonymous. The UK Bribery Act of 2010 and the UK Employment Rights Act of 1996 provide whistleblowers with additional protection in addition to the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998. These laws, in addition to the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, do offer certain protections for anyone who come forward to expose wrongdoing.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, whistleblower protection is addressed under the Protected Disclosures Act of 2000. The whistleblower laws of the Australian State of Victoria and New Zealand are comparable. The law stipulates that a certain number of people must be informed. The list of people who can file a complaint is somewhat detailed. The process to be followed for revealing the information to the designated individuals is outlined in Sections 7-14. Sections 17 and 18 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 grant whistleblowers specific immunity.
But Section 19 is the most intriguing part of this statute. According to Section 19, an informant’s identity must be kept confidential unless the informant gives permission or it is necessary to disclose his identity for an efficient investigation, to avoid endangering the public’s health or safety, or to uphold natural justice principles. Additionally, Section 20 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 addresses false allegations and specifies that the person providing the information cannot benefit from the Act’s protections if they knew the information was untrue or that the person acting in bad faith had done so.
Right to information versus the Official Secrets Act, 1923: Where to draw the line
Article 19(1)(a)34 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all Indian citizens. Furthermore, it is evident from the discussions held in the Constituent Assembly that the freedom of the press is also protected by Article 19(1)(a). However, there is no mention of the right to information. Therefore, it may be argued that the original Constitution did not specifically mention the right to information. However, the Supreme Court of India had the chance to interpret Article 19(1)(a) widely in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain35 and as a result, they included the right to information within its purview. Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 1872 prohibits the use of unpublished Government documents relating to State matters as evidence. However, if the individual receives permission from the officer in charge of the appropriate department, the same can be done. Accordingly, the Court was entrusted with determining whether Blue Book meets the requirements of Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as a privileged record. In his ruling, Justice Mathew noted that Section 123 had to be read in accordance with Section 162 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which requires the witness to present documentation. In his decision, Justice Mathew also stated that in a democracy, everyone has the right to know about all public actions. Nonetheless, Justice Mathew did impose certain restrictions on the right to information. The executive branch alone is in charge of deciding the public’s security, under Justice Mathew’s decision40. Therefore, the Minister’s certificate of non-disclosure will be considered final. Therefore, one could argue that Justice Mathew detracted from his offering.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the argument in S.P. Gupta v. The President of India that certain types of papers are immune under Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 1872 just because they deal with policymaking. The Supreme Court’s clear decision states that the right to information is included in the scope of freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, in L.K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan43 the Indian Supreme Court decided that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution includes the right to information. However, the Supreme Court did point out in a few of its rulings that the Government may decide to withhold information in certain situations and that the right to information is not always guaranteed.
The Right to Information Act, 2005: A conceptual discussion
In order to promote transparency and accountability in Government, the Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005. The Act aims to combat corruption and strengthen the nation’s citizens. The Act allows citizens to view government documents, take notes on them, and obtain certified copies of such documents from the appropriate public entity. According to the Right to Information Act of 2005, a public authority is anybody created by the Constitution or by legislation enacted by the Federal Government or State Governments. The relevant public authority must provide information on the topic within 30 days. Nonetheless, such information must be provided within 48 hours when someone’s personal freedom is at risk.
To be clear, the Right to Information Act of 2005 did not establish a new bureaucracy to enforce the law. Rather, it issued directives and required that all officials in all offices shift from a secretive mindset and responsibilities to an open and transparent one. It elevated the Information Commission to the highest authority in the nation by purposefully and methodically granting it the authority to direct any office in the nation to release information in compliance with the Act’s provisions. Additionally, it gave the Commission the authority to discipline any official who violated their directives. The right to knowledge has been viewed as essential to the advancement of people-centred governance and participatory democracy. By eliminating needless concealment, it also helps public authorities make decisions.
Among the many fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to information is not unqualified. Sections 123, 124, and 162 of the Evidence Act, 1872 permit the disclosure of secret documents. According to these clauses, the department head may decline to provide information about State issues, but only after pledging that the information is a State secret. Similarly, no public official may be forced to reveal communications that were provided to him in confidence. It is also critical to keep in mind that the Central Government has been exempted from the requirement to disclose information under its control by the Atomic Energy Act of 1962.
Furthermore, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prohibit government employees from communicating or sharing any official documents unless specifically authorised by an executive branch direction, either general or specific. To protect a range of information, including but not limited to information on State affairs, diplomacy, national security, espionage, and other State secrets, the British Government passed the Official Secrets Act in 1923. The requirements of the Right to Information Act, 2005 however, always take precedence over those of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in the event of a conflict.
The Official Secrets Act, 1923: A threat to transparency and accountability
One of the most draconian laws in our nation is the Official Secrets Act of 1923. Additionally, this is also one of those laws which is filled with innumerable flaws. Information of any type may be designated as an official secret. However, there is no definition of a secret document in the law. The administration has been left to make the decision. The Government abuses secret documents to further its own political agenda because they are not defined anywhere in the Act. The Official Secrets Act, 1923 grants the Government unrestricted authority to keep information from citizens. Additionally, if the information is made public, the individual who did so faces legal repercussions. Furthermore, if someone is accused under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, it becomes extremely difficult to get bail. This is because the matter involves national security, making it even more difficult to challenge. Furthermore, spying is defined in Section 351 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. However, there are many different definitions of spying. Additionally, the accused bears the burden of proof under Section 3(2) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which requires them to demonstrate their innocence or malice. The researchers believe this to be problematic as well.
The Government has frequently abused the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in recent years. Journalists who report against the Government are the targets of these prosecutions. When journalist Santanu Saikia published the contents of a cabinet memo on disinvestment policy in 1998, he was charged under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. It took eleven long years for the court to finally acquit the journalist. Iftikhar Gilani of the Kashmir Times was charged with violating the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in 2002. The Government argued that he had given the Pakistani Army access to some classified military secrets. The records for which he was charged under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, however, were later discovered to be in the public domain. He was eventually released from prison, but not before spending seven arduous months there for no fault of his own.
When Tarakant Dwivedi of the Mid-Day reported that the firearms purchased by the Government Railway Police were rotting due to water leaks, he was detained under the Official Secrets Act in 2011. The case took a long time because it was filed under the Official Secrets Act, but the reporter was granted bail. Furthermore, for exposing the misuse of the sahayak system in the Indian Army, Poonam Agarwal of The Quint was charged under the Official Secrets Act in 2017. Because of the Official Secrets Act, the case took a long time. Finally, she was released.
The then Attorney General, Mr K.K. Venugopal, contended before the Supreme Court in the Rafale Review hearing that the documents published by the Hindu were secret materials that had been stolen from the Defence Ministry, which put the Official Secrets Act in the headlines more recently. As a result, The Hindu newsgroup must be the target of legal action. But in the Rafale case, the Supreme Court dismissed the Government’s arguments and permitted the use of the leaked.
Interestingly the Law Commission of India filed a report on the Official Secrets Act in 1971. According to its report, it concurs with the argument that a circular should not be subject to the Act’s provisions just because it is marked as secret or confidential if its publication serves the public interest and there is no conflict between the State’s interest and a national emergency. The Law Commission did not, however, suggest any modifications to the legislation. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, however, suggested in 2006 that the Official Secrets Act be repealed and that its contents be moved to a chapter of the National Security Act, 1980. An umbrella Act that would combine all of India’s national security laws should be passed since the Official Secrets Act is inconsistent with the democratic society’s transparency regime.
A Committee was established by the Union Government in 2015 to examine the Official Secrets Act’s provisions in light of the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to the Committee’s assessment, the Official Secrets Act ought to be more open and consistent with the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Right to Information Act, 2005 will take effect regardless of any conflicting provisions in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, any other currently enacted legislation, or any document that is enforceable under a law other than this Act. Consequently, if there is a discrepancy in the Official Secrets Act concerning the information’s provision. The Right to Information Act, 2005 will take precedence over the aforementioned. Nonetheless, the Government may decline to release specific information in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the the Right to Information Act, 2005. In addition, a document may be exempt from the Right to Information Act of 2005 if the Government designates it as secret under Clause 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
The present version of the Officials Secrets Act does not protect the interests of our nation’s citizens. It just violates citizens’ rights in the guise of official secrets and national security. Advocates of the Official Secrets Act frequently contend that this law is essential for preventing espionage and safeguarding military secrets. It is important to remember, though, that the military acts themselves contain protections against military offences. Therefore, there would be no difference even if the Official Secrets were removed. The Lokpal and Lokayukta, the offices of Ombudsman, are also impacted by the Official Secrets Act since many papers are kept secret from the general public under the guise of official secrets, which could damage the Government’s reputation if they are revealed. Furthermore, the Government may book someone under the Official Secrets Act if they submit a document to the Lokpal or Lokayukta, which would have a chilling effect. Therefore, it is imperative that India move towards transparency and shake off the colonial shackles of governmental opacity.
Way ahead
Any democratic society must be built on the foundation of accountability and transparency. The Government’s powers are restrained by these procedures. It guarantees that the public can access information. To put it simply, information transparency holds the Government responsible. Thus, every progressive democratic society strives to achieve the highest level of accountability and set restraints on the Government’s unbridled authority.
In an attempt to improve accountability and openness in the nation’s social and political systems, the Indian Government passed the Right to Information Act in 2005. The information kept by the State’s governmental offices was made available to the public by this Act. Since the Act required government entities to make information available to the public, it did in fact significantly change India’s accountability and transparency procedures. Therefore, it is possible to say that there was a significant change in the way that records were kept in Indian governmental offices. However, the new legislation lost its momentum because of a number of restrictions on the availability of information in the public domain. The primary goal of the Act is overlooked by the constraints. It destroys the core of the law. The limitations permit the Government to operate in an opaque manner. People hold the Government less accountable because of the lack of openness. As a result, we will argue against these restrictions on the Right to Information Act, 2005.
One such restriction upon the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the draconian Official Secrets Act. Over the years, the Indian Government has continued to comply with the Officials Secrets Act, which originally became a law during British rule.
Furthermore, this Act has damaged our nation’s democratic reputation in addition to causing miscarriages of justice. Numerous prominent legal scholars and civil rights advocates have called on the Indian Government to repeal this statute. The same was also recommended by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. Nevertheless, this recommendation is yet to be implemented. Hence, it is the need of the hour that the same is done as soon as possible.64 Furthermore, the interests of whistleblowers are not adequately protected under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act of 2014 in its current form. Consequently, it is imperative that the existing Whistle Blowers Protection Act undergo certain modifications. First of all, as is the case in New Zealand, the whistleblowers’ identities should not be revealed. This will guarantee the whistleblowers’ safety. Second, the disclosures must be examined by an impartial entity other than the appropriate authorities. More impartiality in decision-making will result from this. Thirdly, whistleblowers ought to receive specific financial rewards. As a result, whistleblowers would receive financial assistance for the risks that have undertaken to expose the corruption.
Additionally, the Supreme Court correctly noted in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab65 that the Government should be of laws and not of men, and that it makes no difference in how this concept is applied whether men are in the administration or the judiciary. Article 14’s fundamental criterion is that discretion must always be exercised in accordance with rules or norms to prevent it from degenerating into arbitrariness and treating people in similar situations differently. The exercise of discretion by an authority can be arbitrary or capricious when it is granted unguided and unbound. Our constitutional framework forbids any kind of arbitrariness, including judicial adhocism and presidential sleight of hand. Therefore, it is crucial to make sure that decisions are made in an unbiased and non-arbitrary manner. The fundamental rights were incorporated primarily to empower citizens and hold the Government responsible. Nonetheless, the existing whistleblower protection law has diminished individual status and given the Government more authority. Consequently, it is imperative that the law be changed for the better.

2k cyber financial fraud cases in 4 yrs, just 2 convictions: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Saturday, April 26, 2025.
Even as Mumbai's four cyber police stations  South, Central, West and East registered a total of 2,002 online financial fraud cases between 2021 and April 15, 2025, there were just two convictions during the period. A reply to a query made under the Right to Information (RT) Act by a Kalyan resident also stated that the two convictions were secured in 2021 in cases registered in South and Central region cyber police stations.
Meanwhile, between 2021 and 2025, the West region recorded the highest losses due to the frauds at Rs 335.6 crore, followed by East at Rs 198.3 crore, South Rs 155.9 crore, and Central Rs 133.4 crore.

Cyber financial frauds involve debit and credit cards, investments, job tasks, crypto currency, fake electricity bills, sextortion, and matrimonial scams, among others.
Former Mumbai police commissioner D Sivanandhan said, "There are no significant arrests of professional cyber criminals in Mumbai while other states have successfully apprehended multiple groups from locations such as Noida, Haryana and Jamtara. The complexity of cyber technology continues to present significant challenges for local law enforcement agencies in their investigative efforts."
A senior IPS officer told TOI: "A low conviction rate signals weak deterrence, emboldening criminals to exploit systemic gaps, believing they can evade punishment. Cops struggle due to trans-jurisdictional crimes, delayed reporting, as well as complex digital evidence. They lack motivation, conviction attitude, and conviction targets."
A cyber officer said prolonged legal proceedings affect conviction rates. Insufficient investigation methods and inadequate evidence collection can compromise cases. Digital forensics requires specialised expertise, which many agencies lack, affecting prosecution effectiveness.
Cyber lawyer Dr Prashant Mali said volatile digital evidence is often lost due to delays while limited understanding among police and legal experts weakens investigations and court arguments. "Inadequate training of cops, frequent transfers and understaffing limit their ability to handle complex cybercrimes, though judicial and evidence issues also contribute to the low conviction rate. Enhancing forensic laboratories, training police and prosecutors, streamlining intermediary cooperation will help improve conviction rates." Cyber expert Nikhil S Mahadeshwar said, "The govt is undertaking a lot of initiatives, including cyber commandos and Mumbai police's cyber shield programme, establishment of cyber labs, and training officers. Police have to continuously upgrade to keep up with the latest trends of crimes."

How an amendment to the Data Protection Act puts the Right to Information at risk : Written by Anuj Nakade

The Indian Express: Opinion: Saturday, April 26, 2025.
It flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s settled principle on the necessity of balancing the right to transparency that flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to privacy which has been held to be an inherent part of Article 21

For over a month now, 30-plus civil rights organisations such as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Common Cause, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) have been raising an alarm about the dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 through the amendments introduced in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA).
The abovementioned dilution is the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through Section 44(3) of the DPDPA. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as it stands now, exempts disclosure of information if it causes “an unwarranted invasion of privacy”. A disclosure of personal information that may infringe one’s privacy can only be made if “a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”. Section 44(3) proposes to change this provision to only say “any information which relates to personal information”.
This means there will be a blanket restriction on disclosure of “any personal information” through the RTI Act. This is a significant departure from jurisprudence on transparency in other jurisdictions that have robust data privacy laws such as the European Union and the UK. The amendment also flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s settled principle on the necessity of balancing the right to transparency that flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the right to privacy which has been held to be an inherent part of Article 21 in the case Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
There are many immediate and obvious concerns about the impact of such an amendment. For example, past successes through RTI investigations to ascertain businesses that may have profited from public sector procurement or verifying beneficiaries could be impossible after the amendment is enforced.
However, there is an unusual twist to the story. While the DPDPA envisions protecting the privacy of those in power, the applicants who seek information through the process must be utterly transparent with the powers that be.
Section 6(1) of the RTI Act provides a statutory right to citizens to file RTI request applications in electronic form. In 2023, the Supreme Court held that this means that all states, Courts and Union Territories must have an RTI web portal. In 2025, the states of Sikkim, Nagaland and Manipur made their RTI web portals. However, the web portals are so designed that they seek mandatory disclosure of Aadhar card, or other identity proof. While Bihar and Odisha have had RTI web portals since before the Supreme Court’s Order; they also make Aadhaar card or identity proof disclosure mandatory on their websites.
For anyone who has visited the Wikipedia page for “Attacks on RTI Activists in India”, this is a cause for immediate concern. However, the concern becomes amplified in light of an Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on June 20, 2017, stating: “the personal information details like Aadhar no. should not be asked for while handling applications.”
To make matters worse, the Central Information Commission (“CIC”) observed in Vishwas Bhambhurkar v Public Information Officer that “denial of information for lack of Aadhaar card will be a serious breach of right, which was guaranteed by the RTI Act and amounts to the harassment of the applicant”.
In light of the CIC’s judgment and the DoPT’s OM, mandating Aadhaar cards for RTI applications is a serious breach of privacy. This has not stopped the developers of the RTI web portals of Nagaland, Manipur, Sikkim, Bihar or Odisha from indulging in this practice. Among the five, Sikkim stands out as the only website designed by the National Informatics Centre, Sikkim. A body directly affiliated with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should have even less of a reason to plead ignorance of a seven-year-old OM from another central ministry in relation to this issue. One would be hard pressed to find a good reason for any of the state governments to plead ignorance on an OM specifically issued with instructions on the process of filing RTI applications, while making a web portal for filing the applications.
However, the most unusual of the privacy concerns arise from the RTI web portal for Punjab. The state of Punjab mandates that a user must share their device location in order to be able to log into the RTI web portal. This mandatory sharing of location could very well violate the fundamental right to privacy recognised by the Supreme Court in K Puttaswamy v Union of India.
In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that “any infringement on privacy of an individual must pass the three-fold test of legality, necessity and proportionality”. It is difficult to imagine that a demand for device location data passes the proportionality test, specially paired with the “take it or leave it” manner in which it is provided. It certainly is concerning that disclosure of device location is made mandatory to avail a statutory right.
The Punjab RTI web portal’s privacy policy is also a significant departure from the other RTI web portals in the country. The portal reserves the right to gather certain information about the user, such as “IP addresses, domain name, browser type, operating system, the date and time of the visit, etc.”  The website does claim however, that it does not process this data unless an attempt to damage the site has been detected.
Most peculiarly, the government also states that access to this data can be provided to “regulators, law enforcement or any third party” at government’s complete discretion.
The silver lining here is that the issue of unwarranted invasions of privacy on RTI web portals is limited to Punjab, Odisha, Bihar, Nagaland, Sikkim and Manipur. However, it is worth noting that nearly every RTI web portal in the country is incomplete in its onboarding of all public authorities. Which means that certain authorities can only be contacted through physical applications, submitted in person or by post.
Hence, demands for identity proofs by PIOs (public information officers) could largely be undocumented in these cases. This demand for identity proof practice may even be entirely undetectable, unless a wide-scale inspection of the practice is addressed by State and Central Information Commissions in the annual reports. As of date, the Annual reports published by the CIC and the SICs are entirely silent on this issue. The hope is that someday governments at the centre and the state will be uniform in the applicability of transparency laws and in upholding the privacy of applicants exercising their fundamental and statutory rights.
(The writer is a lawyer with experience in transparency law, and is the creator of nagrikproject.in, an RTI web portal compliance tracker for states in India)