Counterview: Ahmedabad: Sunday, July 5th,
2026.
A
recent decision of the Gujarat Information Commission declining disclosure of a
Gram Sabha attendance register under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has
triggered a debate among transparency advocates, with former Madhya Pradesh
State Information Commissioner Rahul Singh urging the Commission to reconsider
its legal interpretation.
In Appeal No. A-1138-2026, decided on April 22, 2026, the Gujarat Information Commission rejected a citizen's request for a copy of the attendance register of a Gram Sabha/General Sabha held on May 20, 2025. The Commission observed that disclosing the signatures of attendees could potentially lead to financial or other forms of fraud and therefore declined the request by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts certain personal information from disclosure.
Reacting to the order, Rahul Singh addressed an open letter to Gujarat Chief Information Commissioner Dr. Subhash Soni, raising legal and policy concerns over the ruling. He argued that the attendance, proceedings and resolutions of a Gram Sabha are public records connected with statutory public functions and cannot ordinarily be treated as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
According to Singh, participation in a Gram Sabha forms part of a public and democratic process, and disclosure of attendance records does not amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. He further contended that withholding an entire document solely on the apprehension that signatures could be misused is based on speculation rather than a legally sustainable ground under the RTI Act.
Referring to Section 10 of the RTI Act, which provides for severability, Singh suggested that if the Commission had concerns about disclosure of signatures, it could have directed the public authority to redact or mask the signatures while providing the names and other details of those who attended the meeting. Rejecting the entire attendance register, he said, was inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation.
Singh also cited Section 4 of the RTI Act, which obligates public authorities to proactively disclose important information. He maintained that Gram Sabha proceedings, attendance records and resolutions should be placed in the public domain as part of routine disclosure, reducing the need for citizens to seek such information through RTI applications.
In his letter, Singh referred to the constitutional framework governing Panchayati Raj institutions, including the 73rd Constitutional Amendment and the Gujarat Panchayat Act, arguing that transparency in the functioning of Gram Sabhas is essential for public oversight of development programmes, expenditure of public funds and local governance.
He also cited Supreme Court principles affirming that the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and reiterated that disclosure is the norm while exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act must be interpreted narrowly.
Calling for a review of the Commission's approach, Singh said restricting access to Gram Sabha records could weaken transparency and accountability at the grassroots level. The Commission's order and the subsequent objections have sparked wider discussion among RTI activists and transparency campaigners on the balance between privacy concerns and the public's right to access records relating to local self-government.
In Appeal No. A-1138-2026, decided on April 22, 2026, the Gujarat Information Commission rejected a citizen's request for a copy of the attendance register of a Gram Sabha/General Sabha held on May 20, 2025. The Commission observed that disclosing the signatures of attendees could potentially lead to financial or other forms of fraud and therefore declined the request by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts certain personal information from disclosure.
Reacting to the order, Rahul Singh addressed an open letter to Gujarat Chief Information Commissioner Dr. Subhash Soni, raising legal and policy concerns over the ruling. He argued that the attendance, proceedings and resolutions of a Gram Sabha are public records connected with statutory public functions and cannot ordinarily be treated as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
According to Singh, participation in a Gram Sabha forms part of a public and democratic process, and disclosure of attendance records does not amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. He further contended that withholding an entire document solely on the apprehension that signatures could be misused is based on speculation rather than a legally sustainable ground under the RTI Act.
Referring to Section 10 of the RTI Act, which provides for severability, Singh suggested that if the Commission had concerns about disclosure of signatures, it could have directed the public authority to redact or mask the signatures while providing the names and other details of those who attended the meeting. Rejecting the entire attendance register, he said, was inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation.
Singh also cited Section 4 of the RTI Act, which obligates public authorities to proactively disclose important information. He maintained that Gram Sabha proceedings, attendance records and resolutions should be placed in the public domain as part of routine disclosure, reducing the need for citizens to seek such information through RTI applications.
In his letter, Singh referred to the constitutional framework governing Panchayati Raj institutions, including the 73rd Constitutional Amendment and the Gujarat Panchayat Act, arguing that transparency in the functioning of Gram Sabhas is essential for public oversight of development programmes, expenditure of public funds and local governance.
He also cited Supreme Court principles affirming that the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and reiterated that disclosure is the norm while exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act must be interpreted narrowly.
Calling for a review of the Commission's approach, Singh said restricting access to Gram Sabha records could weaken transparency and accountability at the grassroots level. The Commission's order and the subsequent objections have sparked wider discussion among RTI activists and transparency campaigners on the balance between privacy concerns and the public's right to access records relating to local self-government.
.JPG)
.JPG)
