Manipur Relief Camp Scam: RTI Revelations, Selective Denials Spark Demand for Judicial Inquiry

The Frontier Manipur: Moirang: Thursday, 4 September 2025.

Fresh revelations have cast a long shadow over the utilisation of relief funds meant for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Manipur’s Moirang Assembly Constituency, with evidence suggesting large-scale mismanagement, selective information disclosure, and possible diversion of funds. At the heart of the controversy lie RTI replies that expose glaring inconsistencies in expenditure and official opacity, triggering strong demands for a full-fledged judicial inquiry.
At a press conference, Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee spokesperson Hareshwar Goswami alleged that the so-called relief programme for IDPs has been turned into a “money-making scheme” under the guise of humanitarian aid. He presented documents obtained through RTI that shed light on how funds were spent or allegedly siphoned off over the past two years.
Relief Camps Shrink, IDP Numbers Rise
According to official records from an RTI reply to Heisnam Sushil Singh, the number of relief camps in Moirang A.C. has reduced from 20 to 14. Paradoxically, the number of displaced persons has increased from 3,905 to 4,542 as of August 25, 2025. Instead of stabilising, the humanitarian crisis appears to have deepened, even as crores of rupees have been released in the name of relief.
The Spending Trail: Crores on Toothbrushes, Snacks, and TVs
Between May 3, 2023, and August 25, 2025 a span of 27 months authorities reported spending a staggering Rupees 23,21,95,480 ( Rs. 23.21 crore), averaging Rs. 51,121.85 per IDP. A breakdown of expenses raises serious red flags:

• Rs. 7,14,89,609 (7.14 crore) on purchase of toothbrushes, toothpaste, spices, fermented fish, firewood, vegetables, and refilling of gas.
• Rs. 2,10,00,000 (2.10 crore) on purchase of bananas, biscuits, eggs, Maggi, and noodles.
• Rs. 11,20,000 (11.20 lakh) on purchase of pillows (Rs. 246.58 per person).
• Rs. 11,00,000 (11 lakh) for purchase of TV & DTH sets for 20 centres (55,000 per centre).

“These figures are absurd and indefensible. Spending over Two crore on snacks and Seven crore on items like fermented fish and firewood shows definite misappropriation. Where is the accountability?” Goswami questioned.
RTI Battle: A History of Denial and Selective Disclosure
The controversy deepens when viewed through the lens of the Right to Information Act, revealing a pattern of initial denial.
In December 2023, local resident Yumkhaibam Shyam Singh filed an RTI seeking details of sanctioned and utilized funds. His queries were partially denied. He pursued the matter through a First Appeal, a Second Appeal to the Final Appellate Authority (FAA) in February 2024, and finally a Third Appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner.
The SPIO/Jt. Secretary (Home) denied the details, arguing that “giving out such information and placing it in a public domain may give wrong impression among the people and further accentuate the divide between the Hill and the Valley.” The State Chief Information Commissioner upheld this denial, observing that “Disclosure of the said information closely connected with the present ethnic clashes on district basis geographical lines may further fuel the conflict.”
However, in a stark contrast, a later RTI application filed in August 2025 by Heisnam Sushil Singh on a similar matter yielded detailed sanction and expenditure figures, including the One Time Assistance (OTA) of Rs. 2.05 crore from Central and State funds.
This selective disclosure raises troubling questions: Why was information withheld from Yumkhaibam Shyam Singh on the grounds of national integrity and public order, only to be released later to another applicant when the funds had already been utilised?
The MLA Factor: Relief or Political Capital?
Adding to the controversy are photographs showing the Moirang MLA personally distributing relief materials to displaced families. The opposition alleges that government-funded supplies are being portrayed as personal contributions to build political capital, acting as a “Messiah.”
“The MLA acts as if he himself is distributing from his own source. If it is true, it is good. But then where have all the government-sanctioned funds gone? If it is not true, he has to prove that what he had done was from his own source. There is a prima-facie case that the District authorities distributed most relief materials through the MLA, allowing him to take credit,” Goswami charged.
Calls for Judicial Inquiry:
The opposition has demanded a Judicial Inquiry into what is being termed the “Relief Camp Scam.” They argue that only a probe can determine the truth, uncover the facts, and ensure principles of justice are followed.
“There is a clear apprehension that a huge amount of money sanctioned for IDPs in Moirang A.C. was misused and misappropriated. The state government’s three-phase rehabilitation plan speaks of prefabricated homes for those who cannot return, but it must first answer for the massive scam in the relief phase. A judicial probe must be initiated at the earliest to ensure transparency and justice,” Goswami stated, warning that continued silence could further erode public trust in governance.
The issue cuts to the heart of Manipur’s ongoing humanitarian crisis, where thousands of displaced persons are still living in uncertainty. At stake is not only the fate of crores in public funds but also the credibility of state authorities managing the crisis. As pressure mounts, all eyes are now on whether the state government will heed calls for an inquiry or allow yet another alleged scam to slip into obscurity.

RTI : Where Did ₹400 Crore from Limestone Go? HITO Questions Government and Cement Companies over Revenue Leakage

Shillong Today: Shillong: Thursday, 4 September 2025.
The Hynñiewtrep Integrated Territorial Organization (HITO) has alleged a massive revenue leakage of more than ₹400 crore in limestone mining and supply to cement factories in East Jaintia Hills District, citing documents obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

At a press briefing at the Shillong Press Club, HITO General Secretary Wanbun Dkhar said that the RTI findings revealed the State Government had granted approvals for so-called “incidental limestone” extraction to several cement companies despite such a provision not existing under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).
“Limestone is classified as a major mineral. There is no provision under the MMDR Act for incidental approvals for its extraction. Such permissions may apply only to minor minerals, not limestone,” Dkhar stated.
According to the RTI, at least six cement firms including Meghalaya Cements Ltd, Green Valley Industries, Hill Cements, and Amrit Cements benefitted from this arrangement, covering a total of 4.28 crore metric tonnes of limestone.
The royalty collected under this framework was ₹343 crore, calculated at ₹80 per metric tonne. However, under full compliance with the MMDR Act, the companies would also have been required to pay ₹70 per tonne to the Mines and Minerals Reclamation Fund and ₹24 per tonne to the District Mineral Foundation, in addition to royalty. By that measure, state revenue should have reached ₹746 crore.
“This shows a loss of more than ₹400 crore to the public exchequer. The government has caused massive revenue leakage by granting illegal approvals in the name of incidental limestone. This is a violation of the law and amounts to public loss,” Dkhar said.
HITO announced that it will consult with legal experts, environmental specialists, and rights organizations to pursue legal and constitutional measures to halt such practices and protect the state’s natural resources.

To prove he was tortured by Kerala police, Youth Congress leader took the RTI route and prevailed : Written by Shaju Philip

 The Indian Express: Article: Thursday, 4 September 2025.
According to V S Sujith, a Youth Congress leader from Thrissur, the alleged incident occurred on April 5, 2023, at the Kunnamkulam Police Station under the Thrissur city police limits.

A 2023 incident of alleged police brutality against a Youth Congress leader has kicked up a storm in Kerala after the leader managed to procure video “evidence” under the Right to Information act.
According to V S Sujith, a Youth Congress leader from Thrissur, the alleged incident occurred on April 5, 2023, at the Kunnamkulam Police Station under the Thrissur city police limits.
CCTV footage of the purported incident was made public following a favourable order from the station information commission.
Sujith has alleged that on the day of the incident, a police team was threatening a group of youngsters standing on the side of the road. When Sujith allegedly intervened, “the police got provoked and asked me who I am to question them”, he told the media after releasing the video.
“Clutching on my shirts’ collar, police dragged me to their jeep and drove the vehicle to the station,” he alleged.
The CCTV footage that Sujith has obtained purportedly shows that his shirt was missing when he was taken into the police station. It purportedly shows four policemen standing in a cordon and assaulting Sujit as he groans in pain.
Sujith was then allegedly taken to a room without cameras and assaulted.
“After the torture, I have developed chronic hearing problems, which was ascertained after a medical examination held at the behest of the court,” he said.
The police had booked Sujith for drunken public misconduct, but he was granted bail after a medical examination showed he was not drunk.
Sujith then approached higher police authorities for action against the “errant” policemen  including an inspector. When nothing happened, he moved a criminal miscellaneous petition in a local court against the four officials.
That petition is still pending in court.
Meanwhile, he also sought CCTV footage of that day under the RTI Act. When the police turned him down, he appealed to the state information commission, which gave him a favourable order.

Sindh Information Commission issues notices to commissioners, DCs

The Nation: Pakistan: Wednesday, 3 September 2025.

The Sindh Information Commission (SIC) has issued notices to five divisional commissioners and 27 deputy commissioners of Sindh for failing to provide details sought under the Right to Information (RTI) law.
According to the SIC, notices have been served to commissioners of Karachi, Hyderabad, Mirpur Khas, Benazirabad and Larkana divisions, along with deputy commissioners from all 27 districts of the province. The officials have been directed to submit the required information or provide valid reasons by September 8, failing which punitive action will be initiated.
The commission warned that non-compliance could lead to penalties, including up to two-and-a-half years of imprisonment and deductions from salaries.
The notices stemmed from a complaint filed by lawyer Dr. Murtaza Khuhro, who sought details of annual budgets, grants and expenditures from the commissioners and DCs. “The officials failed to provide the requested information, so I approached the commission,” Khuhro said.
The SIC, established under the Sindh Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2016, aims to ensure citizens’ access to public information and promote accountability. Article 19-A of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to access information on matters of public importance, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

Info panel slams ‘activist’ for misuse of RTI law

Times of India: Chennai: Wednesday, 3 September 2025.
Tamil Nadu Information Commission has condemned a self-described social activist, Varaaki, for his unruly behaviour during the hearing of eight complaints filed by him against various public information officers (PIOs).

State information commissioner R Priyakumar observed that the actions of the complainant were nothing but a misuse of the RTI Act by filing repetitive and voluminous RTIs on the same subject, burdening the PIOs. The actions of the complainant showed a pattern of harassment of PIOs, he added.
The issue pertains to eight complaints moved by Varaaki against the PIO/additional superintendent of police, Nilgiris district police, for his alleged failure to provide information sought under RTI applications. These applications pertained to mineral extraction cases, a list of A, A+, B category criminals with their parentage and current address, cases pending against political leaders, and accidents/deaths caused by hoardings, dog bites, cattle attacks, and drunken driving.
On Aug 14, when the complaints came up for hearing, the PIO did not attend the proceeding, citing Independence Day security duty. He requested an adjournment through an email dated Aug 12. The commission acknowledged this and postponed the hearing.
Agitated over the adjournment, Varaaki shouted that the commission always favours PIOs, claimed that more than 20,000 of his cases were pending, and stormed out of the hall, disrupting proceedings.
When information commissioner Priyakumar checked the records, it came to light that Varaaki filed 557 complaints before the state information commission, of which 226 were against the Nilgiris police. Some of them were adjourned on the basis of his request.
Recording its condemnation against the unruly behaviour of the complainant, the commission observed that PIOs are already full-time officers with other duties; such repetitive RTIs obstruct daily governance. Though some queries were in the public interest, most showed a pattern of harassment. Filing RTIs across multiple districts from Chennai raised doubts about genuine intent, the commission said.
Noting that RTI is a noble law for transparency, not a tool for intimidation or disruption, the commission adjourned the hearing to Oct 25, ordering the compulsory appearance of the PIO and the petitioner.

Battle for Openness: Balancing the Official Secrets Act and the Right to Information Act - By Md. Imran Wahab

 Legal Service India: National: Tuesday, 2 September 2025.
From Colonial Secrecy to Democratic Transparency: How the OSA and RTI Act Shape India’s Governance

The existence of both the OSA and the RTI Act reveals a fundamental clash between two different approaches to governance. The OSA stems from a colonial mindset that valued secrecy, while the RTI Act reflects modern democratic principles that champion openness. The OSA makes it illegal to share officially designated “secret” information without permission. In contrast, the RTI Act grants citizens the right to access government documents, shifting the power over information from state control to public empowerment.
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 – A Legacy of Colonial Secrecy
Originally established to protect imperial interests, the OSA gives the government broad power to label information as “secret,” often without clear guidelines or monitoring.
Key problems include:

• Vague Definitions: The term “official secret” is not clearly defined, allowing for subjective interpretations.
• Punishment for Sharing: Sections 3 and 5 penalize individuals for possessing or sharing classified material, even if there was no intention to harm national security. Typically, violations under the OSA are cognizable and non-bailable.
• Lack of Oversight: There is no independent mechanism to review whether a classification is truly justified.

This legal framework fosters a system where secrecy is deeply embedded, and holding officials accountable becomes difficult.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 A Democratic Countermeasure
The RTI Act marked a pivotal moment in Indian administrative law, establishing transparency as a core constitutional value. Its important features include:

• Section 22: Gives the RTI Act priority over other laws, including the OSA, if there is a conflict.
• Section 8(2): Introduces a “public interest override,” allowing even protected information to be disclosed if the public good outweighs potential harm.
• Section 4: Requires government bodies to proactively release certain information, reducing the need for individual requests.

Together, these provisions shift the burden of justification onto the State, compelling it to explain and defend secrecy rather than simply assuming it is allowed.
Legal Precision
It is important to underscore the procedural rigour embedded in the Act’s penal framework. Section 3, which criminalizes espionage and activities prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, is classified as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Similarly, Section 5, addressing unauthorized communication or wrongful use of classified information, is likewise cognizable and non-bailable. This classification demonstrates the legislature’s intent to treat violations under the OSA as grave offences warranting immediate police powers of arrest and limited judicial discretion in bail.
Court Rulings Adjusting the Balance

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court declared that the right to know is part of Article 19(1)(a), laying the constitutional groundwork for transparency laws.
• Alok Kumar v. State of Delhi (2010): The Delhi High Court ruled that simply labelling a document “secret” does not guarantee OSA protection unless disclosure harms national security.
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013): Reaffirmed that informed citizen participation is central to democracy, stressing access to information as a constitutional right.

Comparative Insight
A comparative glance reveals that the tension between secrecy and transparency is not uniquely Indian. In the United States, federal courts review the government’s reliance on exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In the United Kingdom, the Information Tribunal and appellate courts adjudicate secrecy and public interest disputes. These mechanisms show how judicial oversight can reconcile national security with democratic values.
Placing India’s OSA within this comparative frame underscores the urgency of reform, since unlike the US and UK, India lacks a clear statutory balancing test allowing courts to weigh secrecy against the citizen’s right to know.
How Other Democracies Handle Information Global Insights:

• United Kingdom: Repealed the 1911 OSA, replacing it with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which includes exceptions and review processes.
• United States: FOIA (1966) permits judicial review of classified information and mandates regular declassification.
• Canada: The Access to Information Act (1983) includes an independent Information Commissioner to resolve disputes.

These examples demonstrate that national security and government openness can coexist, provided robust safeguards and monitoring systems are in place.
Further Comparative Dimension:
Courts abroad often mediate secrecy and transparency disputes. In the US, federal courts adjudicate FOIA cases, balancing security exemptions against public rights. In the UK, the Information Tribunal provides a quasi-judicial mechanism for disclosure disputes. These judicial interventions show how adjudicative forums negotiate secrecy boundaries—an approach India might adapt to prevent the OSA from becoming an unreviewable shield for executive opacity.
A Recent Test Case The Rafale Controversy:
During the Rafale fighter jet procurement case, the government tried to use the OSA to avoid revealing pricing and contract details. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, reaffirming the RTI Act’s superior authority and the citizen’s right to scrutinize executive decisions that are in the public interest. This event highlighted the critical role of the courts in protecting transparency against government overreach.
Policy Suggestions
Steps Towards a More Open Information System:

• Revise or Replace the OSA: Abolish the current OSA or replace it with a modern law that narrowly defines “classified information” and includes fair procedural protections.
• Create an Independent Classification Review Board: This board would evaluate and regularly review classified documents.
• Integrate Judicial Standards into Law: Incorporate court-established principles into statutory language to prevent misuse of secrecy provisions.
• Strengthen RTI Infrastructure: Provide Information Commissions with sufficient staff, training, and enforcement powers to effectively uphold the RTI Act.
• Public Awareness and Education: Educate citizens about their RTI rights, particularly in local languages.

Background and Judicial Guidance:
Calls for reform of the OSA are not new. The Law Commission of India, in its 43rd Report (1971) on “Offences Against the National Security,” observed that the Act was overbroad and recommended narrowing its scope to cover only matters that genuinely implicate national security. Later, in its 156th Report (1997) on the Indian Penal Code, the Commission reiterated the need to either repeal or substantially revise the OSA, noting that it was “anachronistic in a democratic republic.” Despite these recommendations, the statute continues unchanged, often clashing with the transparency regime envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005.
Judicial precedents such as S.P. Gupta v Union of India, Alok Kumar v State of Delhi, and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India have consistently tilted the balance in favour of the citizen’s constitutional right to know, highlighting the urgency of legislative intervention.
Conclusion
Openness as a Constitutional Requirement:
The Official Secrets Act, 1923, rooted in colonial-era governance, is increasingly out of step with India’s democratic aspirations. By contrast, the Right to Information Act, 2005 reflects the constitutional value of transparency, flowing directly from Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The judiciary has repeatedly affirmed that the citizen’s “right to know” is not merely a statutory entitlement but a fundamental right, indispensable for meaningful participation in democracy.
While the RTI Act has curtailed the reach of the OSA through its overriding provisions and judicial reinforcement, the persistence of a secrecy-driven legal framework underscores the urgent need for reform. A modern democracy requires secrecy to be the rare exception and transparency the norm. Replacing or revising the OSA, alongside strengthening RTI mechanisms, is therefore essential to align Indian governance with constitutional principles.
Ultimately, the struggle between the OSA and the RTI Act is not just a conflict between two statutes, but a contest between a colonial legacy of opacity and a constitutional mandate for openness. In this battle, it is the constitutional guarantee of transparency that must prevail, ensuring that accountability, public trust, and democratic legitimacy remain at the heart of governance.

Debris debate prolongs as RTI flags Lotus Lake a wetland, CIDCO still says no : Mrityunjay Bose

 Deccan Herald: Navi Mumbai: Tuesday, 2 September 2025.
Once allotted to Indian Airlines, Lotus Lake’s wetland status is now at the center of a state-CIDCO row, with RTI documents confirming it’s a protected waterbody despite debris and denial.

NMMC sign board at Lotus Lake-Not to dump debris etc

As a precursor to the notification of wetlands, the ground-truthing exercise of the controversial Lotus Lake wetland in Nerul, Navi Mumbai, has been completed by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM), the state government confirmed in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query.
This is significant in light of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd (CIDCO) claiming that Lotus Lake is not a wetland, said NatConnect Director B N Kumar, who filed the RTI application. Moreover, the State Environment Department, in its response uploaded on the RTI website on August 26, clearly referred to Lotus Lake as a “wetland,” he pointed out.
The process of “brief documentation” of the wetland, along with other water bodies in the state, has been ongoing, and the NCSCM report is awaited, the state environment department said in response to NatConnect Foundation’s query. The report will be sent to the District Wetland Committee, according to the response signed by Nilesh Potedar, public information officer and Scientist-2 at the environment department.
Kumar sought to know the status of notifying the wetland, as the NCSCM, which is mandated to map and document wetlands in the state, has surveyed Lotus Lake, Panje, NRI, TS Chanakya, and Kharghar wetlands.
Green groups were up in arms after CIDCO partly landfilled the wetland with debris. Kumar complained to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEFCC), the Chief Minister, and the State Environment Department about the landfill.
The MOEFCC has taken up the issue with the environment department, which sought status reports on the lake from the Thane district collector and CIDCO. The corporation claimed that Lotus Lake is a man-made waterbody and had once even allotted it to Indian Airlines.
CIDCO has so far defied Forest Minister Ganesh Naik’s directive to remove the debris from the wetland. Naik had set a week’s deadline on June 26 for the corporation to act. Quoting an earlier response from the MOEFCC, Kumar said CIDCO is not the authority to decide on the status of wetlands.
As per the Ramsar Convention definition, wetlands are “areas of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish, or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.”

Maharashtra Post-Election Sweep Cracked By RTI : Priyanka Tupe

Outlook India: Mumbai: Tuesday, 2 September 2025.
Letters to the Election Commission of India, election petitions in court and Right to Information queries the opposition bloc has done it all since the Maharashtra Assembly polls last year

Seeking Fair Play: Congress workers stage a protest in
Nagpur against vote theft | Photo: Special Arrangement

With allegations of “vote theft” sparking a nationwide debate since Rahul Gandhi’s August 7 press conference, citizens and civil society groups have been questioning alleged irregularities in electoral rolls and the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) response. While Congress workers in Maharashtra have been raising public awareness on the matter with district-level protests and digital campaigns, the ruling coalition has tried to label their efforts as an electoral ploy of the INDIA bloc with an eye on the upcoming Assembly election in Bihar.
However, many losing candidates had reported discrepancies and filed election petitions well before Rahul’s sensational presser during the Maharashtra polls last November. They wrote letters to the ECI, filed queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and even filed election petitions as a last legal resort.
On May 16, in a reply by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Nagpur South West to an RTI query filed by Nagpur-based Congress leader Prafulla Gudadhe, who had lost to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and challenged his election in court on January 4, it was revealed that 33,712 names had been added to and 3,411 deleted from the electoral roll of the Nagpur South West constituency that elected Devendra Fadnavis in just six months between the Lok Sabha election in April-May 2024 and the November polls in Maharashtra.
In July, the Nagpur bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed Gudadhe’s election petition on the “technical ground”, as his lawyer Akash Moon puts it, that the “petitioner was not present in the court while filing the petition”. Earlier, on January 1, alleging election rigging in the Nagpur South West constituency, Gudadhe had demanded the entire video and CCTV footage of polling, and complete details of Form-17C, a booth-by-polling-booth comprehensive voting record, from the ECI under rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
In his RTI query of May 1, besides asking how many new voters (under Form-6) were added after the 2024 Lok Sabha election and before the Assembly election, and how many voters were deleted under Form-7 during the same period, Gudadhe also demanded access to reports by the booth level officers (BLOs) about all the newly registered and deleted voters. In its response, the ERO refused to share the BLOs’ reports, saying, “All the applications for voter additions and deletion in the roll were submitted by the BLOs online through (the Garuda) app and therefore the offline reports of these entries are not available with this office and…can’t be provided.” It didn’t say why the information could not be provided from the app’s digitised database.
Gudhahe believes the number of additions and deletions to the electoral roll of the Nagpur South West constituency is “unprecedented”, and therefore requires investigation by the ECI. “My petition before the high court was not dismissed on its merit, while the ECI has not responded to my rightful demands,” says Gudhade. His appeal in the Supreme Court has been posted for hearing on August 28.
Questioning the “technical ground” of the petition’s dismissal, Gudhahe’s lawyer Moon, who also represents several other defeated INDIA bloc candidates who have filed election petitions with the Nagpur bench under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, says all the petitioners had “signed the oath in the presence of the court registrar”. “All the petitions were filed in compliance with the legal framework. The court should look at their merit and decide election petitions within six months,” says advocate Moon. At least 21 such petitions from the Vidarbha region alone have been filed with the Nagpur bench.
Among the petitioners is Jayshree Shelke, who lost the Buldhana assembly seat with a narrow margin of 841 votes. Confident she should have won, Shelke waits for the Nagpur bench to decide on her election petition challenging the victory of Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) MLA Sanjay Gaikwad. She has also been waiting for the CCTV footage of polling, besides Form-17C details, that she demanded from the ECI.
In a writ filed with her petition, Shelke has demanded recounting of votes in the Buldhana constituency and claims to have submitted evidence of alleged fraud concerning 4,000 votes cases of “duplication”, according to her lawyer Moon. “Around 60 names on the roll belonged to the dead,” Moon adds.
Similar petitions by INDIA bloc candidates Girish Pandav from Nagpur South, Satish Wajurkar from Chimur and Santosh Singh Rawat from Ballarpur are among those set aside by the high court citing procedural lapses. “Most of the others are waiting to be heard,” says Moon, who believes election petitions although they consume time and resources are a legal remedy political leaders should use, besides raising public awareness about free and fair elections. “All my clients are first runners-up who secured significant votes and sought complete information through proper applications, but the ECI has not responded till date. Is this how the commission ensures free and fair elections?” asks Moon.
Even before the November polls, discrepancies in the electoral roll had been found by a team led by former member of the legislative council and leader of the Peasants and Workers Party of India Balaram Patil, who contested from Panvel. In September 2024, Patil wrote to the ECI about discrepancies concerning 11,000 voters and demanded deletion of duplicate registrations. The ECI’s regional officers sent him a response a month later, giving rule-based justifications of the discrepancies, but Patil had already filed a petition in the HC, demanding deletion of duplicate voters.
In their verdict on October 7, Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khatta ordered the ECI and the state election commission to decide on the representations made by Patil within two weeks from receipt of the order and without seeking any extension. The ERO summoned Patil for a hearing on October 17 and said, “No suo motu deletions shall be done in an election year. Deletion can be done only by Form 7 or on the basis of request of the concerned elector in the declaration part of Form 8.” Citing the Handbook of Returning Officers, 2023, the ERO also referred to Chandrakant Nimba Patil vs State Election Commission and others filed at the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay HC to support its decision of not deleting alleged discrepancies. “I put up my case before the polls in front of the ECI as well as the high court,” says Patil. “When the ECI decided to not delete the duplicate voter registrations, I didn’t think of challenging it in the Supreme Court because that would take years and a lot of financial resources.”
Following Rahul’s August 7 press conference, INDIA bloc candidates who lost the Assembly election started sharing their stories. In an interview, former minister Yashomati Thakur alleged fraud concerning around 30,000 voters in her constituency, Teosa, in Yavatmal. Many Congress activists in Maharashtra believe Rahul’s press conference unmasked the ECI. They say the ‘Voter Adhikar Yatra’ in Bihar and Rahul’s continued campaign are gaining momentum and leading to district-level campaigns for public awareness.
“The common people have now started questioning the ECI’s role,” says Bhausaheb Ajabe, general secretary, Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. “The courts should hear election petitions in a fast-track manner and pronounce time-bound verdicts. But, more than the judiciary, it is the ECI’s duty as a statutory body to serve the public as an autonomous authority instead of favouring the BJP. The number of petitions is a comment on its functioning.”
In December 2024, the Union government amended the Conduct of Election Rules and limited the public inspection of election documents, including CCTV footage of polling booths. This came exactly a year after the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Office and Terms of Office) Act was enacted, empowering a committee comprising the prime minister, a Union cabinet minister and the leader of the Opposition to nominate the chief election commissioner (CEC). This drew much flak because, by removing the Chief Justice of India from the committee, the legislation allows the ruling party a two-third majority in deciding who helms the machinery that conducts elections across the country.
(Priyanka Tupe is Assistant Editor, Outlook. She is based in Mumbai.)
Democracy is about ballots, but also about memory who safeguards both, and who seeks to rewrite them? Outlook’s September 11, 2025 issue, 'Election Omission' probes these erasures of voters, voices, and histories asking what they mean for India’s democratic future. This article appeared in print as 'Staking Claim To The First Spot'

Malaysia: Right to Information Act must uphold human rights standards

ARTICLE 19: Malaysia: Tuesday, 2 September 2025.
Joint commentary from ARTICLE 19, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) on Malaysia’s commitment to enact a Right to Information Act

Parliament building in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Photo: CEphoto, Uwe Aranas

In recent months, Malaysia’s proposed Right to Information (RTI) Act has prompted discussions about how the legislation should consider ‘local sensitivities and political structure,’ ‘protect national harmony,’ and apply to ‘citizens’ only. These concerns follow the government’s decision to draft an RTI law at the federal level, an initiative that civil society has been campaigning on for decades as part of efforts to address the current culture of secrecy within the government and empower the public to make better-informed decisions.
The right to access information is a fundamental enabling right, critical to achieving other rights. It underpins anti-corruption measures and is the cornerstone for transparency, which in turn enhances the public’s trust in the government. When Malaysia adopts this law, it will join an estimated 140 countries worldwide that already have legislation in place guaranteeing the right to request and access information from public bodies.
Local context is not a permissible restriction
RTI is an integral part of freedom of expression, which is protected under Article 10 of the Malaysian Federal Constitution, as well as under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While Malaysia is not a signatory to ICCPR, ARTICLE 19 considers the obligations under the convention to reflect customary international law and should guide the interpretation of guarantees for freedom of expression under the Malaysian Constitution. Essentially, the government takes on the role of custodian of information held by public bodies and not as a gatekeeper. RTI should be grounded in the principle of maximum disclosure and must be accessible to all.
Any exception to RTI is subject to the strict ‘harm’ and ‘public interest’ tests, which must be clearly and narrowly defined. This means that the authorities can withhold information only if they can meet the following test: information relates to a legitimate aim (i.e. protection of national security, public order, public health, or respect of the rights of others); disclosure threatens to cause substantial harm to that aim; and the harm to the aim must be greater than the public interest in having that information. Restrictions that aim to protect the government’s reputation from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing, including human rights violations and corruption, can never be justified.
This means that broad concepts such as ‘local sensitivities’, ‘political structure’, or efforts to ‘protect national harmony’ do not comply with international standards and could undermine an otherwise effective RTI law through excessively vague or arbitrary interpretations.
For example, during a 2019 national consultation on RTI, civil servants raised concerns about how information about race, religion and royalty (known as ‘3R’ issues), if made public, could be manipulated and politicised. At present, authorities continue to use restrictive laws, including the Sedition Act 1948, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and the Penal Code, to stifle freedom of expression, including 3R-related opinions, which have been caught out by overly broad notions such as causing ‘disharmony’ and ‘feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will’.
RTI is for all
RTI must be accessible to everyone, regardless of nationality. States must ensure that freedom of expression and the right to access information are upheld without discrimination. Migrants, refugees, and stateless persons are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse due to the lack of adequate protection in Malaysia. These groups often lack information about their rights and redress options, or where these options are available to them, such information is not provided in a language they understand. Excluding these communities risks further disenfranchising some of the most marginalised groups and exacerbating existing inequalities, despite the government recently reiterating its commitment to achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Corruption cases, abuse of power, human rights violations and environmental destruction have historically been reported on and publicised through the unyielding efforts of both Malaysian and non-Malaysian journalists, academics and human rights defenders. Ensuring that the RTI law extends to all persons, regardless of nationality or place of residence, will enable more individuals to act as effective citizen investigators and checks on impropriety within the government, which will ultimately benefit the nation as a whole.
When an RTI law becomes meaningful
One of the SDGs’ most significant commitments is Goal 16, which calls for all countries to ‘Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.’ The free flow of information strengthens accountability and transparency, prevents corruption, and increases the capacity of everyone to participate in policy-making. RTI is not just a goal in itself it is a prerequisite to achieving sustainable development as a whole. Information on budgets, spending, regulations, and decision-making enables people to work from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance, allowing them to participate in important decisions that affect their lives.
RTI is about more than government commitments. It empowers people to participate, advocate, and monitor progress towards meaningful development goals. RTI also facilitates effective business practices, as public bodies hold a vast amount of information, particularly relating to economic matters. Open data in this context can enhance accountability and stimulate innovation and business development.
However, for one to reap these benefits, an RTI law that meets international standards and is accessible to all is essential. Apart from ensuring maximum disclosure and setting out a limited scope of exceptions, the government must set up an independent body to ensure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place to guarantee access to information relevant to public interest without political interference. The law should also provide for the right to appeal to an independent body a specialised and independent administrative body established for this purpose.
It is crucial to ensure that the implementation of the RTI law is not hindered by existing laws that could impede an individual’s access to request information. These laws include: the Official Secrets Act 1972, which institutionalises the culture of secrecy in public bodies; and Section 203A of the Penal Code that prohibits disclosure of any information obtained in the performance of an individual’s duties or functions under any written law. As the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 does not apply to the government, this means that the government cannot be held accountable in the event of any privacy violations. Unless these laws are brought into alignment with the upcoming RTI Act, they will remain a barrier to those seeking access to information.
Adopting an RTI law is already a step in the right direction one that signals Malaysia’s readiness to embrace greater transparency and accountability, as well as encouraging greater public participation. An informed public is the most effective watchdog for government actions, playing a crucial role in monitoring corruption. However, the accurate measure of progress lies not simply in enacting such a law, but in ensuring that it is grounded in international human rights standards. This is a defining moment for Malaysia: an opportunity not only to join the top RTI-rated countries, but to set a regional benchmark for openness and good governance.

One Death A Day, 1,705 Lives Lost In India's Clinical Trials Since 2021, RTI Reveals : Written By Susmita Roy

 Medical Dialogues: Bangladesh: Monday, 1 September 2025.
In a grim reality, from 2021 till July 2025, clinical trials in India have seen 1,705 deaths and more than 7,000 serious adverse events, equivalent to one participant dying and four others suffering life-threatening complications every single day, according to data released by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) through an RTI response.

This information was provided by CDSCO in response to an RTI query, which had sought SAE-related data for Hyderabad and Telangana. Instead, the regulator shared nationwide figures.
The CDSCO’s reply, accessed through an RTI application, shows that between 2021 and July 2025, 1,705 participants died due to Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) during clinical trials across the country. In the same period, 7,189 cases of non-fatal SAEs were recorded an average of 4.2 people every day experiencing life-threatening side effects.
For this year alone, from January to July 2025, 232 clinical trial participants lost their lives, whether they had enrolled as patients seeking treatment or as volunteers. The Medical Dialogues Team had earlier reported that a 33-year-old man died at his brother's home in Jalahalli after taking under-trial medication. He had been involved in a clinical trial conducted by R and D company.
As per a recent media report in the Deccan Chronicle, even with the high death toll, compensation is still uncommon. Merely a small percentage of all reported fatalities receive any compensation because this clause is not used unless it can be established that the death was caused by taking part in a research experiment.
In relation to the above, the CDSCO replied to the RTI inquiry that, of all the 1,705 SAE deaths in the country from 2021 till the end of July 2025, “compensation was provided to 68 ‘subjects’ as per law.”
The CDSCO said that certain details sought in the RTI inquiry particularly regarding SAEs or related deaths linked to CROs, hospitals, or specific drugs and formulations in Hyderabad and the rest of Telangana could not be disclosed. The regulator cited Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, which states, “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”
In response to another query on whether any violations were noted by companies, CROs, or hospitals in Hyderabad or Telangana over the past five years, the CDSCO replied, “No such information is available in this office.”

HC rules over not appointing info commissioner as per Act

BSS: Bangladesh: Monday, 1 September 2025.

The High Court (HC) today issued a rule over the government's failure to appoint an information commissioner in line with the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A High Court division bench comprising Justice Kazi Zinat Hoque and Justice Aynun Nahar Siddiqua passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed by journalist Arup Kumar Roy.
The court also directed the authorities concerned to submit a report on the initiatives taken for appointing an information commissioner.
Barrister Sara Hossain, Barrister Nishat Mahmud and Barrister Ruhi Naz appeared for the petitioner.
The lawyers told the court that the posts of information commissioners have remained vacant since September 5, 2024. The petitioner filed the writ as some of his complaints pending before the commission could not be disposed of due to the vacancies.

EC provides link to SIR guidelines in response to RTI query on appraisal for the exercise; adds 'further, no information available'

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, 1 September 2025.
In response to queries raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act seeking copies of the independent appraisal undertaken based on which the Election Commission of India decided to initiate a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country this year, and related files on the decision, the commission has simply shared a link to the guidelines on SIR dated June 24, 2025, saying that “further, no information in this regard is available”.

Sharing screenshots of the RTI responses to her queries, transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj, in a post on X, said, “Shocking replies from the Election Commission to RTI queries. No files exist on how decision to undertake nationwide SIR was processed and approved by ECI.” She pointed out that going by the response from the commission there is no record of the “independent appraisal” which ECI had claimed in its affidavit as the basis for SIR.
“When asked for copy of orders/guidelines of Bihar’s 2003 roll revision, ECI provides 2025 order! What is ECI hiding?” she asked.
In her RTI application dated July 28, Bhardwaj had asked the EC to provide a copy of any independent appraisal/study/analysis undertaken based on which ECI decided to initiate SIR across the country in 2025. She also asked for the reference number and copies of all files on the decision and sought time to inspect these files.
In the response from EC dated Aug 27, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) simply stated, “You may refer to Commission’s guidelines dated June 24, 2025 which is self- explanatory and available on the Commission’s website.” He also shared a link to the guidelines in the response. He then said, “Further, no information in this regard is available in the Commission”.
In another RTI application dated July 28, Bhardwaj asked for the order or notification vide which the intensive revision of electoral rolls was carried out for Bihar in 2003. She also sought a copy of the guidelines of 2003 which specify the manner and procedure of revisions, the prescribed forms and the list of documents required to be furnished.
In response, the CPIO just shared the link to the June-24, 2025 guidelines of the EC regarding the SIR.