Times of India: Hyderabad: Saturday, 21 February 2026.
An RTI application seeking detailed information on land owned and managed by Osmania University has triggered a controversy after officials asked the applicant to furnish ‘proof of Indian citizenship' instead of supplying the requested records, raising questions about how public authorities interpret the Right to Information Act.
The application was filed
by RTI activist and urban development forum state convener M Srinivas, who
sought comprehensive details of the university's land holdings, including
survey records, extent of property, and administrative information maintained by
the estate and legal cell.
University lands have frequently been at the centre of public debate due to concerns over encroachments, alienation, and management practices, making the information sought particularly significant.
Sec 3 of RTI Act cited
Instead of providing the details, the university responded that the application could not be processed unless the applicant submitted proof of Indian citizenship. Citing section 3 of the RTI Act, officials stated that only Indian citizens are entitled to seek information from public authorities and asked Srinivas to furnish a copy of his Aadhaar card or an equivalent document as proof.
Srinivas told TOI that while section 3 establishes that citizens have the right to information subject to the Act's provisions, it does not mandate submission of citizenship proof along with an RTI request. He argued that imposing such a requirement amounts to adding conditions not specified in the law.
Even after a reminder from the applicant, no information was provided. In a subsequent communication, the university reiterated its stand, stating that the absence of citizenship proof remained the sole reason for withholding the requested records.
Moves info commission
Following this, Srinivas approached the Telangana Information Commission with a formal complaint on June 3, challenging the university's demand and seeking directions for disclosure of the information.
Referring to the episode, Srinivas said that public authorities were increasingly resorting to procedural barriers to delay or deny information. He added that although administrative changes over the years had weakened the RTI framework, recent appointments of information commissioners had raised expectations of stricter enforcement and greater accountability.
An RTI application seeking detailed information on land owned and managed by Osmania University has triggered a controversy after officials asked the applicant to furnish ‘proof of Indian citizenship' instead of supplying the requested records, raising questions about how public authorities interpret the Right to Information Act.
University lands have frequently been at the centre of public debate due to concerns over encroachments, alienation, and management practices, making the information sought particularly significant.
Sec 3 of RTI Act cited
Instead of providing the details, the university responded that the application could not be processed unless the applicant submitted proof of Indian citizenship. Citing section 3 of the RTI Act, officials stated that only Indian citizens are entitled to seek information from public authorities and asked Srinivas to furnish a copy of his Aadhaar card or an equivalent document as proof.
Srinivas told TOI that while section 3 establishes that citizens have the right to information subject to the Act's provisions, it does not mandate submission of citizenship proof along with an RTI request. He argued that imposing such a requirement amounts to adding conditions not specified in the law.
Even after a reminder from the applicant, no information was provided. In a subsequent communication, the university reiterated its stand, stating that the absence of citizenship proof remained the sole reason for withholding the requested records.
Moves info commission
Following this, Srinivas approached the Telangana Information Commission with a formal complaint on June 3, challenging the university's demand and seeking directions for disclosure of the information.
Referring to the episode, Srinivas said that public authorities were increasingly resorting to procedural barriers to delay or deny information. He added that although administrative changes over the years had weakened the RTI framework, recent appointments of information commissioners had raised expectations of stricter enforcement and greater accountability.
.JPG)
.JPG)
