Gadchiroli hosts RTI hearings for the first time since 2005 under outreach initiative.

Indian Express: Nagpur: Saturday, August 02, 2025.

Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande announced that all pending RTI appeal cases in Gadchiroli district up to 2023 have been completely resolved, achieving the goal of ‘zero pendency’ for that period.

The State Information Commission, under its ‘information commission at your doorstep’ initiative, held its first-ever direct hearing in Gadchiroli. Decisions were delivered on 100 second-appeal cases filed under the Right to Information Act. The hearing was organised at Niyojan Bhavan in the presence of Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande, and Nagpur Bench Information Commissioner Gajanan Nimdeo.

Pande announced that all pending RTI appeal cases in Gadchiroli district up to 2023 have been completely resolved, achieving the goal of ‘zero pendency’ for that period. He added that another hearing would be organised soon to clear all appeals from 2024-25. He expressed hope that with the cooperation of the district administration, citizens’ rights will be nurtured with more vigor.

The two State Information Commissioners instructed the Public Information and Appellate Officers present to dispose of cases under the Right to Information Act, 2005, promptly. They also called for increased public awareness to effectively implement the right to information.

10 booked as RTI exposes Rs 29 cr panchayat fund scam.

Tribune India: Mohit Khanna: Patiala: Saturday, August 02, 2025.

of Rs 60 cr given to village for land acquisition, only Rs 30 cr left in account. 

The Vigilance Bureau has registered a case against 10 persons, including members of the panchayat that was in power from 2019 to 2022, in connection of a Rs 29 crore scam at Nalas Khurd village.

The village panchayat in Rajpura came under the Vigilance Bureau lens after an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act exposed misappropriation of funds allocated to the village in lieu of setting up of Nabha Thermal Plant. The plant was established at the village in 2013. The government had given the village panchayat Rs 60 crore for the land acquired for the plant.

When the current panchayat took charge in 2018, it was stated to have had Rs 55 crore in its account. After some villagers filed an RTI application under the “Funds Bachao, Pind Bachao” committee, it was revealed that only Rs 30 crore were left in the panchayat account.

The Vigilance Bureau had named sarpanch Munshiram, panches Surinder Singh, Som Chand, Jangir Singh and Ved Prakash, JE Amarjit Kumar, panchayat secretaries Jasvir Chand and Rajinder Kumar, contractor Dinesh Kumar Bansal, and Mohan Lal, a resident of Manakpur village in the case.

The accused have been booked under various section for fraud and cheating.Ranjit Singh Saini, a committee member, who exposed the scam, said bills worth crores were shown to be spent on ghost projects, which existed on paper only.According to the FIR by the Vigilance Bureau, sarpanch Munshiram, panches Surinder Singh, Som Chand, Jangir Singh, and Ved Prakash served in Nalas village from 2019 to 2022.

In January 2019, the village received Rs 58.43 crore from the previous panchayat. From January 2019 to August 2022, Nalas Khurd received an additional Rs 7.50 crore from various sources like bank interest, the 14th and 15th Finance Commissions and the sale of construction materials and land.

During the investigation, it was found that the panchayat spent Rs 32,20,59,348 on various projects. However, a detailed inspection of development works by the Vigilance Bureau revealed that there was no record of how Rs 29,96,33,614 was spent.

The panchayat approved the same work for the village stadium multiple times in violation of the Panchayati Raj Act. The total financial loss in the stadium work amounts to Rs 3,61,09,454.

An investigation into the works at the cremation ground revealed that the panchayat paid for an electric cremation furnace that was never installed. Payments for the furnace were made to various firms based on the JE’s estimate. According to the vigilance report, this fraudulent purchase resulted in the embezzlement of Rs 43,32,883.

Similarly, payments worth Rs 20,27,580 were made for the installation of cameras at various locations, but only a small number of cameras were found to be set up at the village. In the report, it was disclosed that inflated costs were shown for the construction of cemented streets in the village.

Minister’s family running dance bar under mother’s name gives up licence.

Times of India: Mumbai: Saturday, August 02, 2025.

Following allegations that the minister of state for home, Yogesh Kadam, was running a dance bar with a licence in his mother's name, the Kadam family reportedly surrendered the orchestra licence of Savali bar in Kandivli on Friday. 

Shiv Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab criticised the licence surrender, stating it proves his allegations were right and that a dance bar with immoral activities was being operated by the Kadam family for years. Demanding Kadam's resignation, Parab argued that just because a thief returns stolen goods, he cannot be let off. "Yogesh Kadam must resign on moral grounds, but it seems the CM is helpless and can't take action against him. 

The law was broken by the MoS home, who is supposed to be the protector of the law," Parab said. Kadam did not respond to calls and texts from TOI on Friday. Parab had met CM Fadnavis Tuesday to submit evidence that Kadam was allegedly running a dance bar with a licence in his mother's name. He also presented evidence that sand extracted from the Jagbudi river, intended for houses for poor farmers, was allegedly being diverted to a dental college linked to Kadam's family in Ratnagiri. Parab on Friday demanded action against Kadam, warning that if the CM does not take action, it will be assumed that he too is shielding dance bars. "The MoS home, who is the protector of the law, is trampling the law. It's a pity that the CM can't take action and is helpless. It's not too late. I have already given all the evidence to the CM. So far, there is no action on the licence holder. The police are under political pressure. So first, Yogesh Kadam must resign; otherwise, this will show the CM is helpless. The CM must show some spine," Parab said.

"There is a Savali bar, its licence is in the name of Yogesh Kadam's mother. There were bar girls dancing there, obscene dances, and money was being thrown. All this information is in the police records and FIR. I got this information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, it cannot be false. Accordingly, when the raid was conducted, action was taken against 22 bar dancers, 22 customers, and four employees in the bar. They say that they do not run the dance bar; it is given to someone else to run. I am telling you the provisions of the law for your information: if a servant or someone authorised by the owner commits a misdemeanour, the responsibility lies with the owner. Police have all video footage of a dance bar being run there," Parab said.

Letter on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Reporters Collective: New Delhi: Saturday, August 02, 2025.

To

Press Club of India, New Delhi.

Editors Guild of India, New Delhi

Digipub News India Foundation, New Delhi

Indian Women’s Press Corps, New Delhi

We write to you on behalf of The Reporters’ Collective. We are a registered trust of independent investigative journalists. We are constituent members of Digipub as an organisation and of the Press Club of India in our individual capacities. We are members of the Global Investigative Journalism Network.

‍We were recently made aware by some of you that the Union government of India interacted with representatives from the four entities on the DPDP Act, 2023.

‍We write to you, deeply concerned about the crushing impact of the Digital Personal Data Protection

Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) on:

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005

2. The right of citizens under the Constitution to access and make public information that holds

the powerful to account for legitimate public purposes.

‍And consequently on:

3. Journalism as a public-purpose tool to safeguard and further the democratic rights of all citizens of our country.

Several independent jurists and legal experts have warned of how the DPDP Act, which is yet to be notified, deals a body blow to the first two and by consequence, renders journalism incapable of being conducted in India in any other form other than as an advertisement promoting the powerful.

To spare the legal details, we append one such legal reading of the impacts of DPDP Act, authored by Justice A P Shah, detailing its ill consequences. You may have already read this as well as taken advice from your legal counsel.

We are all aware:

1. How critical the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been for every citizen, including journalists, to bring greater accountability of the government towards the citizens.

2. That public-purposed organisations and citizens, from villages to metropolitans, along with transparency activists, have used the RTI Act widely, at scale, with persistence and rigorously to empower all of us, including the journalists, to tell the truth. It is their persistent effort that has often brought out information that we as journalists have put our pens to help citizens know better.

3. Sometimes they have had to pay the price with their lives for doing so.

4. That journalism is being rendered toothless through the DPDP Act, by choking RTI Act and by strangulating the right of the whistleblowers, transparency activists, researchers, lawyers and larger civic society’s right to hold the government to account.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as journalists to defend the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the citizens’ right to access, process and disseminate information that holds the government and other powerful entities answerable to citizens. It is only by defending these rights of citizens that we as journalists can protect our right to conduct our profession in a manner that serves public purpose.

In light of the above we strongly urge you to,

1. Share a cogent written record of the discussions held by the four organisations with the Union government because these conversations are not of the nature of trade negotiations but for the public purpose of protecting the rights of citizens, and as a subset, that of journalists and journalism.

2. Reiterate to the government, to fraternal colleagues and to the citizens, that each of you continue to hold the opinion that

a. The DPDP Act must be amended to protect the existing provisions of RTI Act and

b. The right of all public-purposed entities, professions and citizens to access, process and use and disseminate information that enables holding the government and other powerful entities to account.

3. Reiterate, that the harm to profession of journalism by the DPDP Act can only be undone by amending the DPDP Act to safeguard the RTI Act as it stands today and the protection of the right of the citizens at large on above mentioned counts.

4. Affirm that we continue to agree with the array of eminent justices, experts and lawyers that no oral or written claims, assurances or clarifications from the government in any form carry any legal weight while the DPDP Act continues to stand in its current form.

5. Reiterate that you are not agreeable to a compromise that provides a fig-leaf to the government by merely carving an ineffective exception for journalists in the DPDP Act through any route, while leaving intact other provisions that kill the RTI Act and the people’s right to hold the government accountable by the use of information.

6. Take a more consultative approach by engaging meaningfully with your constituent members and the journalistic fraternity at large across the country, besides the public-spirited organisations, experts and individuals who have kept us all better informed of the impacts of the DPDP Act.

‍7. Engage with the government in a transparent manner. We urge you to do so because all four of you have previously taken the initiative to share concerns about the DPDP Act. We are thankful to you for it. And by the privilege of being located operationally in Delhi, you are now engaged with the government to shape public policy, citizens’ interests and the profession of journalism in India as impacted by the law going by your own accounts.

You hold the privilege to represent citizens’ and journalism’s interest. You also therefore carry the responsibility that comes with it to be uncompromising about citizens’ rights. And as part of it, not as an exception to it, be uncompromising about our rights as journalists.

We write to you in trust that you shall continue to take a principled stand and convince the government to do right. And if you cannot, continue to stand up for those principles through the legal recourse available to us. We will also share this letter with the larger fraternity of journalists and citizens to help us all engage with this serious threat to our profession more actively.

The Reporters’ Collective

‍Nitin Sethi and Mayank Aggarwal, Trustees

August 1st, 2025

Legal Commentary by Justice A P Shah can be read here.

Farmers urged to use RTI Act to access crucial agricultural information.

The Hindu: Andhra Pradesh: Saturday, August 02, 2025.

Farmers can use the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to access key data and services from government departments, said officials at an awareness programme held at the IDIP Hall in Eluru on Friday (August 1). The event was organised by Andhra Pradesh Community Natural Farming (APCNF), Eluru, to educate farmers on their rights and the practical applications of the RTI Act.

Addressing a gathering, District Agriculture Officer Habib Basha highlighted that the RTI Act is a vital tool for promoting transparency and accountability in government. He encouraged farmers to make use of the legislation to seek essential information related to agriculture and public services. “When farmers approach the Agriculture Department, they must be treated with respect and given clear, timely guidance,” he said.

APCNF District Project Manager Venkatesh, who spoke on the importance of natural farming, emphasised its role in public health, environmental conservation and chemical-free crop production. He urged agriculture officials to spread awareness among farmers on these sustainable practices, particularly at the village level.

Farmers can use the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to access key data and services from government departments, said officials at an awareness programme held at the IDIP Hall in Eluru on Friday (August 1). The event was organised by Andhra Pradesh Community Natural Farming (APCNF), Eluru, to educate farmers on their rights and the practical applications of the RTI Act.

Addressing a gathering, District Agriculture Officer Habib Basha highlighted that the RTI Act is a vital tool for promoting transparency and accountability in government. He encouraged farmers to make use of the legislation to seek essential information related to agriculture and public services. “When farmers approach the Agriculture Department, they must be treated with respect and given clear, timely guidance,” he said.

APCNF District Project Manager Venkatesh, who spoke on the importance of natural farming, emphasised its role in public health, environmental conservation and chemical-free crop production. He urged agriculture officials to spread awareness among farmers on these sustainable practices, particularly at the village level.

Technical Agriculture Officer Kalimata provided a comprehensive explanation on how to file RTI requests, giving farmers a clearer understanding of how to navigate the process and benefit from it.

The programme witnessed active participation from farmers across the Eluru district, along with natural farming staff. It served as a meaningful platform to build legal literacy and promote eco-friendly agricultural methods within the farming community.

निजता कानून की आड़ में सूचना के अधिकार में संशोधन से नहीं मिलेंगी सूचनाएं

Down to Earth: Himanshu Nitnaware, Bhagirath: Friday, August 01, 2025.

पूर्व केंद्रीय सूचना आयुक्त यशोवर्धन आजाद ने कहा कि निजता कानून प्रजातांत्रिक ढांचे में अब तक सबसे बड़ा हमला.

“डिजिटल पर्सनल डाटा प्रोक्टेशन (डीपीडीपी) कानून प्रजातांत्रिक प्रणाली में अब तक सबसे बड़ा हमला है। यह कानून भ्रष्टाचार को बढ़ावा देने का काम करेगा। विरोध प्रजातंत्र का तकाजा है लेकिन यह कानून विरोध को खत्म कर ताबूत में आखिरी कील ठोकने का काम करेगा। इससे सूचना मिलनी बंद हो जाएंगी और सूचना के अधिकार (आरटीआई) का कोई औचित्य नहीं रहेगा।”

दिल्ली के प्रेस क्लब में आयोजित प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस में ये चिताएं पूर्व केंद्रीय सूचना आयुक्त यशोवर्धन आजाद ने जाहिर कीं। उनका कहना था कि डीपीडीपी कानून के क्रियान्वयन के लिए डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बोर्ड का गठन किया जाएगा जो कानून के उल्लंघन पर किसी पर भी 250 करोड़ रुपए तक का जुर्माना लगा सकता है।

सतर्क नागरिक संगठन (एसएनएस) की संयोजक अंजलि भारद्वाज का कहना था कि डीपीडीपी कानून के तहत सूचना के अधिकार में किया गया संशोधन प्रेस की आजादी को भी खत्म करने का काम करेगा। साथ ही कठिन सवाल पूछने वालों और जवाबदेही मांगने वालों को हतोत्साहित करेगा।

सिविल सोसायटी संगठन के तमाम सदस्यों ने एक सुर में कहा कि सूचना के अधिकार की धारा 8(1) जे में किया गया संशोधन सूचना के अधिकार को खत्म करने का काम करेगा। मजदूर किसान शक्ति संगठन से जुड़े निखिल डे का कहना था कि संशोधन के बाद निजी सूचना उस वक्त की रजामंदी के बाद दी जाएगी जिसके बारे में सूचना मांगी गई है। अंजलि भारद्वाज के अनुसार, बिना अनुमति नाम उजागर नहीं किया जा सकता। ऐसे में किसी व्यक्ति के भ्रष्टाचार से जुड़ी सूचनाएं मिलनी असंभव हो जाएंगी।

प्रेस क्लब की उपाध्यक्ष संगीता बरूआ ने बताया कि मीडिया और नागरिक अधिकार समूहों के प्रतिनिधियों ने 28 जुलाई 2025 को इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय के अधिकारियों से मुलाकात कर डीपीडीपी अधिनियम, 2023 को लेकर गंभीर चिंताएं जताईं। उन्होंने कहा कि यह कानून पत्रकारों, व्हिसलब्लोअर्स और कार्यकर्ताओं की सरकार को जवाबदेह ठहराने की कोशिशों पर गंभीर असर डाल सकता है।

उन्होंने कहा कि कानून के पहले के मसौदों में पत्रकारिता गतिविधियों को स्पष्ट रूप से छूट दी गई थी। ये छूट अंतिम मसौदे तक मौजूद थीं, कानून पारित होते समय हटा दी गईं। यह कोई चूक नहीं हो सकती। उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि मंत्रालीय सचिव ने उन्हें मौखिक आश्वासन दिया है कि यह कानून पत्रकारों पर लागू नहीं होगा, लेकिन ऐसे बयान कानूनी रूप से कोई महत्व नहीं रखते।

सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के अधिवक्ता प्रशांत भूषण ने भी इस कानून की आलोचना करते हुए कहा कि यह व्हिसलब्लोअर्स की रक्षा करने में विफल है। “अगर कोई व्यक्ति भ्रष्टाचार उजागर करता है और अधिकारियों के नाम लेता है, तो अब उसे डीपीडीपी अधिनियम के उल्लंघन के लिए सजा दी जा सकती है। उनका कहना था कि यह कानून केवल उन कंपनियों और संस्थाओं पर लागू होना चाहिए जो डेटा का प्रसंस्करण करती हैं, न कि पत्रकारों, व्यक्तियों और नागरिक समाज के सदस्यों पर।”

भूषण ने चेतावनी दी कि यह कानून केंद्र सरकार को अत्यधिक अधिकार देता है, जिससे वह इसका इस्तेमाल आलोचकों और सरकार को जवाबदेह ठहराने की कोशिश करने वाले व्यक्तियों के खिलाफ कर सकती है।

इंटरनेट फ्रीडम फाउंडेशन के निदेशक अपार गुप्ता ने कहा कि निजता का अधिकार सरकार की निगरानी और हस्तक्षेप की शक्ति को सीमित करने का अधिकार है।

उन्होंने कहा, “गोपनीयता और डेटा संरक्षण के नाम पर सरकार जरूरी अधिकारों को कमजोर कर रही है। यह कानून सरकार को अत्यधिक केंद्रीकृत शक्ति देता है। उन्होंने कहा कि पत्रकारों से उनके स्रोतों का खुलासा करने को कहा जा सकता है, जवाबदेही पर काम कर रही सिविल सोसाइटी संस्थाओं से उनकी पूरी जानकारी मांगी जा सकती है, और व्हिसलब्लोअर्स को अपने पास मौजूद सभी दस्तावेज सौंपने के लिए मजबूर किया जा सकता है।

गुप्ता ने यह भी बताया कि डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बोर्ड प्रभावी रूप से केंद्र सरकार के नियंत्रण में है। इसके अध्यक्ष और सदस्यों की नियुक्ति, हटाना, वेतन और लाभ सब कुछ केंद्र सरकार तय करती है। उन्होंने कहा कि यह कानून इतना अस्पष्ट है कि इसे असंवैधानिक कहा जा सकता है।

HC issues notice to Punjab Govt over failure to implement hybrid hearings in State Information Commission.

Indian Express: Chandigadh:Friday, August 01, 2025.

The petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court said non-compliance with SC orders violated the RTI Act, and citizens’ right to access information and justice.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday issued notice to the Punjab Government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court directives mandating hybrid hearings before the Punjab State Information Commission.

The PIL, filed by 24-year-old RTI activist and advocate Nikhil Thamman, challenged the Commission’s failure to provide virtual hearing options and related digital infrastructure as required under the apex court’s 2023 ruling in Kishan Chand Jain v Union of India.

Appearing in person, Thamman argued that the Commission’s continued reliance on physical hearings effectively deprived citizens, especially those from remote and rural areas, of access to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The petitioner submitted that despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions requiring all State Information Commissions to offer hybrid hearing options and include virtual hearing links in daily cause lists by December 31, 2023, Punjab had failed to implement even the most basic requirements.

Citing a legal notice he had served on June 28, 2025, to the Punjab Government and the State Information Commission, Thamman stated that no corrective steps had been taken despite warnings of potential contempt proceedings. Thamman further pointed out that the commission had failed to establish an e-filing mechanism and electronic service of RTI documents — provisions that were central to both the Supreme Court’s directives and the RTI Act’s emphasis on accessibility and time-bound redressal.

Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, before whom the matter was listed, issued notice to the State and posted the case for further hearing on September 15.

The PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raised two principal questions: whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Information Commission to implement hybrid hearings across all proceedings, and whether virtual links should be mandatorily included in daily cause lists to ensure citizen participation through video conferencing.

Thamman submitted that video conferencing facilities installed in District Administrative Complexes across Punjab remained largely non-functional, thereby defeating the purpose of decentralised justice. He contended that the commission’s inaction amounted to a violation not only of the RTI Act but also of citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

The PIL also drew attention to the real-life hardships imposed by the current system: many citizens from distant districts had to travel to Chandigarh merely to mark attendance or appear for brief hearings, often at considerable financial and logistical cost. In contrast, Thamman maintained that the widespread availability of smartphones and video conferencing applications made hybrid hearings both feasible and necessary.

Thamman, a resident of Banur in SAS Nagar district, sought comprehensive relief from the High Court, including the implementation of hybrid hearings, inclusion of virtual hearing links in all cause lists, establishment of operational e-filing and e-service mechanisms, and any other directions the court deemed appropriate to secure effective enforcement of the RTI Act in Punjab.Stories For You

SCI commissioner directs officials to provide RTI info on time

Times of India: Bengavi: Friday, August 01, 2025.

State chief information commissioner AM Prasad said that twenty years have passed since the implementation of the Right to Information Act. In 2019, the RTI bench was started in Belagavi. More than 12,000 applications are pending in the Belagavi division and approximately 3,000 applications in Belagavi district. 

Action should be taken to dispose of these. Instructions were given to the respective deputy commissioners under the jurisdiction of the Belagavi bench in this regard. Speaking while presiding over the Right To Information Act training programme for public information officers and First Appellate Authority officers held at Suvarna Vidhana Soudha on Thursday, Prasad said that a public information officer must provide information within the time limit to applicants who file applications seeking information under the Right to Information Act. 

If the information officer does not provide information without any reasonable cause or if he provides incorrect information with malicious intent, he will have to pay a fine and disciplinary action may be taken, he said. Deputy commissioner Mohammed Roshan said that a meeting will be organised every three months to dispose of pending RTI applications.

RTI bench dismisses 7,651 appeals, warns against misusing the law.

Hindustan Times: Sudarshan P. Gangan: Mumbai: Friday, August 01, 2025.

RTI Act should not be used as a tool of oppression or hold the government to ransom, says an order of the Information Commission.

Calling them a burden on the government administration and a misuse of the law, the Sambhaji Nagar bench of the Information Commission has dismissed 7,651 appeals led by 18 Right To Information (RTI) activists over the last 15 months. In a recent order, the commission also called the appeals led by one applicant in particular a misuse of the RTI Act. In doing so, the order stated, the applicant was holding government offces to ransom, potentially bringing work in these ofces to a standstill. 

In its order passed on July 14 and uploaded on the commission’s portal this week, Prakash Indalkar, state information commissioner of the Sambhaji Nagar bench of the commission, dismissed 81 appeals led by RTI activist Janak Gaikwad. Of the bulk appeals dismissed since April 2024, led by 18 applicants, 3,660 appeals led by Keshavraje Nimbalkar were dismissed in June and December 2024; and 1,144 second appeals led by activist Sharad Dabhade were dismissed in April and September 2024.

In a one-off order, Indalkar cited two verdicts by the Supreme Court and Chief Information Commission of India. He pointed to an August 2011 verdict of the apex court, which had stated, “The act should not … be converted into a tool of oppression and intimidation, and not turn into a scenario where 75% of the government staff is engaged in 75% of their time in collecting RTI information instead of discharging their duty…” the order states. The July 14 order also cited a verdict delivered by then central information commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi, in 2012, where he had said that right to information is a fundamental Indalkar also said that bulk appeals do not serve any public interest but vested individual interests. “Because of the bulk applications by specic applicants, signicant time of government ofcers and personnel is wasted. 

This has posed the danger of government staff spending most of their precious time collecting RTI information instead of serving the people,” the order stated. An ofcial from the Information Commission said that a large number of appeals were led against ofcers and teachers in aided and government schools, and government departments such as the forest and rural development departments. “In some cases, the appeals were led to blackmail government servants,” the ofcial said.

No data on Sri Lankan refugees willing to return or those who have sought Indian citizenship, says RTI reply

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
The Commissionerate of Rehabilitation and Welfare of Non-Resident Tamils, which handles matters concerning Sri Lankan Tamil refugees living in camps in the State, does not have information on refugees who are willing to return to their home country or those who have sought Indian citizenship.

This has been stated in a reply to a Chennai resident under the Right to Information Act.
On the issue of voluntary repatriation of the refugees to Sri Lanka, a government official says there is no scope for forcible repatriation of refugees. Even if conditions in the country of their origin have genuinely improved, repatriation can be done only with “their full and voluntary consent.” International law (especially the 1951 Refugee Convention), UNHCR [Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees] policy, and evolving case law firmly prohibit forced repatriation in situations where refugees may still face persecution or unsafe conditions, the official explains.
It is because of this reason that the Commissionerate does not collect the data. “Whenever the refugees want to go back , we are helping them to return immediately,” the official observes, adding that “no request for return is pending with us.”
As regards the citizenship issue, the Union government’s consistent stand has been that any foreigner can acquire citizenship can be acquired by registration under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 or by naturalisation under section 6 of the Act. However, an illegal migrant is not eligible to acquire citizenship by registration or naturalisation. However, an illegal migrant is not eligible to acquire citizenship by registration or naturalisation.
But, the major hurdle for the Sri Lankan refugees to apply for citizenship is that they have been brought under ‘illegal migrants’ as per the Act. The State government’s advisory committee recommended, in its interim report of September 2023, that the position needs to be reviewed and revoked as “admission of the Sri Lankan Tamils has been carried out with the concurrence” of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The RTI Act reply stated that as on May 31, 2025, the number of refugees living in the camps was 57,118 belonging to 19,662 families. As per the data available with Q branch of the Police department, 32,745 refugees belonging 13,167 families were living outside the camps as on June 18, 2025.

RTI becomes extortion tool in Khadia, Officials allege over 220 ‘activists’ are using RTI to extort money from Khadia builders and bootleggers.

Ahmedabad Mirror: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
Khadia, the heritage heart of the walled city, has earned a new and surprising distinction: it has become a hub for “RTI activists.” The ward, spanning just 1.5 sq. km with a population of over one lakh, is now home to more than 220 such individuals, a number that has authorities alleging the transparency law is being weaponized for extortion.

Officials across several government and semi-government agencies say they are fed up with dealing with a constant barrage of information requests from these so-called activists.
 The issue is rooted in the area’s changing landscape. Khadia, known for its beautiful heritage structures, is also rife with illegal construction. Many intricately carved wooden houses have been replaced by commercial buildings, often with new structures added illegally under the guise of “repairing” heritage properties.
‘Settlements before replies’
This wave of unauthorised construction has become a boon for those allegedly misusing the Right to Information Act. A senior official from the AMC’s Estate department told Mirror, “Daily, we get a minimum of six to seven applications regarding unauthorised construction. Before we can even collect the information and file our reply, the two parties reach a settlement, and the applicant is suddenly no longer interested in taking things forward.”
He minced no words in stating the alleged motive: “RTI applications are filed to extract money from people who are doing construction. Many times, the builders are also at fault as they are building illegally, and hence they agree to some settlement.”
The official’s suspicion is further fueled by the fact that some “activists” are not even from the area. “There are a few whose addresses are of Viramgam and Dholka. What do these people have to do in Khadia?” he asked. “Their motive is clear.” The department maintains a list of over 220 such individuals who file applications for so-called “public welfare.”
‘Activists on the prowl’
The local police are facing a similar issue. With cases of bootlegging on the rise in the area, the RTI tool has become a handy instrument for extortion, according to a senior local councilor.
“It is as if people are on the prowl in the area,” the councillor said, “ready to catch hold of anyone to extort money.”

'Excessive Centralisation of Power': Lawyers, Activists, Journalists, MPs Express Fear Over DPDP Act

 The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
The organisers said that if the DPDP Act is enacted in its current form, activists, journalists, lawyers, political parties and organisations “will become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law”.

A group of representatives from social movements, campaigns, civil society organisations, and including senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, media and parliamentarians met for a day-long consultation on the implications of the controversial Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
The meeting was organised by the Roll Back RTI Amendments Campaign (comprising the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) and 30+ campaigns and groups) and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR).
The DPDP Act, the draft rules of which were notified in January this year, could curtail the freedom of the press and people’s right to information, many have said, as it vests excessive powers in the Union government.
Last week, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told the parliament that The draft rules received 6,915 inputs and comments from the public, firms and other stakeholders, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MP Vaddiraju Ravichandra.
In a press release, the organisers expressed that the DPDP Act can have a chilling impact on activists, journalists, lawyers, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse and disseminate critical information as they will become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law”.
“The excessive centralisation of power in the central government, including the constitution of a government-controlled Data Protection Board with powers to levy penalties of up to 250 crore (which can be doubled up to Rs. 500 crore), raises concerns about the weaponisation of this law against those seeking accountability,” they said.
The meeting was attended by Justice Madan Lokur, Justice Rekha Sharma, senior lawyers and advocates CU Singh, Prashanto Sen, Prashant Bhushan, Huzefa Ahmadi, Trideep Pais, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Nizam Pasha, Ritwick Dutta, Sarim Naved, Gautam Bhatia, Apar Gupta, Suroor Mander, Soutik Banerjee, Cheryl D’Souza and Shahrukh Alam.
Senior journalists, the President of the Editor’s Guild of India and the President and Vice-President of the Press Club of India also spoke of its impact on media and investigative reporting, while MPs including V. Sivadasm (CPIM), Raja Ram Singh (CPIML) and Rajkumar Raut (BAP) also joined the session.
Representatives of various campaigns and social movements including the Right to Food Campaign, the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights, National Federation of Indian Women, Right to Education Campaign, talked about the challenges posed by the DPDP Act and how it will prevent public monitoring and scrutiny.
RTI Activists including Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, Commodore Lokesh Batra, Jayaram, Bhaskar Prabhu, Praveer Peter, Amrita Johri and Rakshita Swamy flagged the severe dilution of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act. Economist Jayati Ghosh, former IAS officers and members of the Constitutional Conduct Group and Yashovardhan Azad, former Information Commissioner, CIC also attended the meeting.
There was consensus that the DPDP Act, in its current form, is extremely problematic and the press release also stated that “using the smoke screen of privacy and data protection, the government is diluting crucial rights”.
Journalist bodies including the Editor’s Guild of India and Press Club of India have earlier expressed fear that this law could end exposed corruption and silence whistleblowers, fundamentally altering India’s media landscape.
The issue also comes up as another significant threat has emerged regarding the weakening of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, due to an amendment brought through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by allowing government bodies to simply withhold “personal information” without the safeguard provisions on public interest or other such exceptions.

Gujarat state information commission orders cops to share CCTV footage, mask identities

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
In a key ruling, the Gujarat State Information Commission has directed Rakhial police station to provide CCTV footage to an RTI applicant arrested in a gambling case, but after masking the identities of other accused persons.

Mohammed Sufiyan Rajput, arrested on Feb 25, 2024, filed an RTI on March 19 seeking footage showing entry and exit of all accused at the police station. The public information officer (PIO) denied the request under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, citing potential interference with investigation.
Rajput's first appeal was rejected by the deputy commissioner of police, Zone 5. He then approached the commission on July 16, 2024, demanding the footage and penal action against the PIO.
During the hearing, the PIO argued that the footage could not be shared due to the presence of other accused. However, the commission observed that "the information related to the applicant could be segregated and shared without compromising others' privacy." The state information commission, in its final order on July 8 this year, directed the PIO "to provide the relevant CCTV footage to Rajput free of cost, after masking other individuals' identities, within 30 days by RPAD". It also directed the PIO to submit a compliance report. Rajput, however, expressed dissatisfaction, "What will I do with a masked video footage? How will I fight my innocence?"
RTI advocate Pankti Jog of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel insists that the nature of information sought by Rajput relates to issues of governance, public duties and responsibilities, "A masked video footage is like providing a blank page under RTI. When someone seeks information, they seek it as proof. If they do not get meaningful information, how will they pursue justice?"
Former central information commissioner and RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi added, "The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person. If the public body believes masked footage is sufficient, would it provide the same to Parliament or state legislature? I think the complete footage should be provided to the citizen."
Inspector B G Chetaria confirmed the footage was sent via registered post aknowledgment due (RPAD) following the commission's order but claimed ignorance about whether Rajput received it. Rajput, however, alleged he never got the video. "Since I did not receive the masked footage, I did not sign an acknowledgement."

ILS Law College, Pune Centre for Training for Good Governance is offering an online certificate Programme on Right to Information (RTI)

 SCC Online: Pune: Thursday, 31 July 2025.
This certificate programme will give practical insights into the working of the Act, discuss recent case laws on the matter, and will offer dos and don’ts regarding RTI.

Program Overview:
The Right to Information Act is a precursor to the new wave of impartial and transparent governance through public participation in India. Right to information presupposes that every citizen of India has a right to know the workings of the government and every public official is accountable to the public. However, in today’s times, the right to information regime is playing the role of a scrutinizer of the government rather than a facilitator to the public.
It is for this reason that a detailed training in the Right to Information Act and its intricacies is necessary. This certificate programme will give practical insights into the working of the Act, discuss recent case laws on the matter, and will offer dos and don’ts regarding RTI. This programme will equip the officers with necessary and practical knowledge regarding RTI. The resource persons will be among the National Trainers of RTI.
Program Content:
Introduction and Overview of RTI
Relevant Concepts
Disclosing information and exemptions: What to disclose and what not to disclose
How to Dispose an application, Appeals, Penalties
Who can enroll: Employees in Educational Institutions/ Government Officers/ Any person interested
Duration: 11th August to 14th August 2025 Time: 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Registration: Up till 11th August 2025
Certification: Certificate on completion of program with 70% attendance upon filling the feedback form
Payment Mode: Online. Only through Direct SBI, Net Banking and Credit Card. Debit Cards payments are not acceptable. Fees: ₹ 3000 inclusive of GST
Office Coordinator: Sukanya Joshirao, 9921514042, ils.training@ilslaw.in
(REGISTER HERE)

RTI Act | Central Information Commission Cannot Make 'Policy Prescriptions' To Any Public Authority: Delhi High Court

 Live Law: New Delhi: Thursday, 31 July 2025.

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of the Central Information Commission constituted under the Right to Information Act 2005 is to ensure transparency and disclosure of information by a public authority, and not make policy prescriptions.
Justice Prateek Jalan held thus while allowing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation's (HPCL) plea against a show cause notice issued to it by the CIC, upon its suspended employee's complaint alleging non-disclosure of information.
The employee had sought a list of HPCL's empaneled advocates.
HPCL responded that it does not empanel Advocates and rather engages them on a case to case basis. Nonetheless, the PSU furnished a list of 603 lawyers and the Courts before which they appeared on behalf of HPCL.
Remaining dissatisfied, the employee filed a complaint with the CIC, claiming that HPCL did in fact maintain a panel of advocates, and that details of the panel had been withheld contrary to the tenets of the RTI Act.
CIC then issued notice to HPCL, criticizing it for not empaneling advocates and failing to produce any guidelines that confer on them 'unfettered powers' for engaging lawyers without preparing panels.
HPCL then moved the High Court contending that CIC has no jurisdiction to enter into policy issues in this case, whether or not HPCL ought to maintain a panel of advocates.
It was contended that jurisdiction under the RTI Act is confined to furnishing of information maintained by the public authority, and a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act can be entertained only if the PIO has withheld information available with it, which was not the case herein.
Agreeing with HPCL's submissions, the High Court observed, “RTI Act is intended to foster transparency in government functions by supplying information available with public authorities to the citizens. It is not intended to require public authorities to go further, and provide information which they do not maintain.”
It noted that CIC proceeded on a completely different basis, with regard to the desirability of the practice of empaelling advocates.
“Its observations on this point were extraneous to the issue at hand…Whatever the views of CIC on the policy of HPCL in this regard, the only question before it was whether “information”, as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been denied mala fide, or incorrect, incomplete or misleading information has been knowingly furnished. The impugned order does not so indicate, but instead expresses policy prescriptions, which are beyond the remit of CIC,” the Court remarked.
Stating that such an approach of CIC was wholly ultra vires its powers under the RTI Act, the High Court set aside the show cause notice.
(Click here to read judgment)

Rights groups say vague Data Protection Act to fail RTI, curb Press freedom

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 31 July 2025.

Former High Court Justice AP Shah in an open letter to Attorney General of India on July 28 said that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act “enables public authorities to deny information simply by classifying it as 'personal,' regardless of its public relevance or importance.”
Civil rights and journalist bodies on Wednesday expressed apprehension over the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, saying the provisions under it may fail the Right to Information Act and end press freedom.
Supreme Court lawyer and convenor of The Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms, Prashant Bhushan alleged that the Act bars and amends RTI Act to stop sharing of personal identifiable information without consent. He said that the provision not only kills the Right to Information Act but also discourages journalists and whistleblowers from exposing the names of corrupt officials without their consent.
“The definitions contained in the Act of data fiduciary, data principal, data processing that anyone be it an activist who seeks personal information through RTI or journalist or a whistleblower attempts to expose corrupt officials then it can be considered an offence under the Act,” Bhushan said.
Former High Court Justice AP Shah in an open letter to Attorney General of India on July 28 said that Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act “enables public authorities to deny information simply by classifying it as ‘personal,’ regardless of its public relevance or importance.”

Amendments to RTI Act dilute crucial rights, say press bodies and activists

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 31 July 2025.

The Roll Back RTI Amendments Campaign has set its sights on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act’s “dilution” of the RTI Act, and media professionals have raised concerns that their liberty to report on wrongdoers could be affected by the data privacy law
Media professionals’ representatives, along with the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), said on Wednesday (July 30, 2025) that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and its draft rules were “extremely problematic” and would erode both the right to information and did not protect journalists from identifying people whose wrongdoing they uncover.
The NCPRI has been militating against the DPDP Act’s dilution of the Right to Information Act, 2005’s Section 8(1)(j) for nearly two years, pointing out that the amendment, inserted into the very end of the 2023 data privacy law, would significantly increase the ambit of information that can be refused to information seekers.
‘Diluting crucial rights’
Along the way, starting this February, the collective roped in almost two dozen press bodies around the country, including the Press Club of India, and corresponding press clubs in most State capitals. The Roll Back RTI Amendments Campaign is urging the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to undo the RTI Act’s amendment, accusing the government of “diluting crucial rights”.
Representatives of the press bodies, including the Press Club of India and the DIGIPUB Foundation, the latter representing many digital-only outlets, met with Union IT Secretary S. Krishnan earlier this month. Mr. Krishnan assured the journalists that the Act would not hamstring their work, said PCI vice-president Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, who was present at the meeting. Mr. Krishnan said Union IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw would meet the group as well, but no date has been specified for this meeting.
However, this assurance and an offer by Mr. Krishnan to publish a “Frequently Asked Questions” document responding to these concerns was met with scepticism by both the journalist representatives and NCPRI as a FAQ has no legal standing on its own, and courts usually only refer to the law as written when hearing disputes.
Justice (retired) A.P. Shah, who has been the chairperson of the Law Commission of India, wrote to the Attorney General that the RTI amendment would be a “seismic shift in India’s transparency framework for the worse”, and that the DPDP Act “significantly harms” the law by enabling “public authorities to deny information simply by classifying it as ‘personal’, regardless of its public relevance or importance”.
Mr. Shah said that another change made by the DPDP Act to the RTI law which removes a section mandating that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot similarly be denied to any other information seeker legitimises the “information asymmetry between elected representatives and ordinary citizens”. The amendments are “ripe for constitutional challenge”, wrote Mr. Shah.

President taken to court over delay in RTI Commission appointment : Lakmal Sooriyagoda

Daily Mirror:  Sri Lanka: Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

A Fundamental Rights petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking an order directing the President to appoint an acting Chairperson to the Right to Information (RTI) Commission.
Journalist Mithun Jayawardena along with the Deyata Saviya organisation filed the petition, naming President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the Secretary to the President, the Speaker and the members of the Constitutional Council as respondents.
The petitioner states that the position of Chairperson of the RTI Commission has remained vacant since March this year, leading to a suspension of inquiries into information requests. The petitioner argued that it has resulted in the violation of the Fundamental Rights of both the petitioner and the general public.
The petition further stated that no appointment has been made since the resignation of Retired Supreme Court Judge Upali Abeyratne on March 9, 2025.
The Chairperson's role, as defined under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016, is essential for the effective functioning of the Commission and for upholding the public’s Constitutional right to access information.

जस्टिस एपी शाह ने अटॉर्नी जनरल को पत्र लिखकर RTI एक्ट में संशोधन वापस लेने का आग्रह किया, कहा- 'यह सूचना तक पहुंच को प्रतिबंधित करता है' : Avanish Pathak

Live Law: New Delhi: Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट के पूर्व जज जस्टिस अजीत प्रकाश शाह

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट के पूर्व जज जस्टिस अजीत प्रकाश शाह ने भारत के महान्यायवादी आर. वेंकटरमणी को एक खुला पत्र लिखा है, जिसमें उन्होंने डिजिटल व्यक्तिगत डेटा संरक्षण अधिनियम 2023 के माध्यम से आरटीआई अधिनियम में किए गए विधायी परिवर्तनों पर "चिंता" व्यक्त की है।
उन्होंने कहा है कि ये परिवर्तन इस अधिनियम के लोकतांत्रिक उत्तरदायित्व और नागरिक सशक्तिकरण के उद्देश्य को नष्ट करने का खतरा पैदा करते हैं।
पत्र में कहा गया है,
"द इकोनॉमिक टाइम्स और अन्य स्रोतों की रिपोर्टों के माध्यम से मेरे ध्यान में आया है कि इलेक्ट्रॉनिक्स और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय ('MeitY') ने औपचारिक रूप से आपकी कानूनी राय मांगी है कि क्या डीपीडीपी अधिनियम आरटीआई अधिनियम को कमजोर करता है। एक जागरूक नागरिक के रूप में, मैंने इस महत्वपूर्ण विषय पर अपना विचार विमर्श किया है। इस राय को प्रस्तुत करने का मेरा उद्देश्य आपके कार्यालय की सहायता करना और इस अत्यावश्यक संवैधानिक महत्व के मामले पर सार्वजनिक चर्चा में सार्थक योगदान देना है।"
विधि आयोग के पूर्व अध्यक्ष ने कहा है कि मूल आरटीआई अधिनियम, विशेष रूप से धारा 8(1)(जे), जनता के जानने के अधिकार और व्यक्ति के निजता के अधिकार के बीच बहुत ही सावधानीपूर्वक संतुलन स्थापित करता था - एक ऐसा संतुलन जिसकी भारतीय न्यायपालिका ने लगातार पुष्टि की है; हालांकि, हालिया संशोधन "इस नाज़ुक संतुलन को बिगाड़ते हैं"।
पत्र में उन तरीकों की सूची दी गई है जिनसे डीपीडीपी अधिनियम 2023 आरटीआई अधिनियम को नुकसान पहुंचाने का प्रयास करता है, जो इस प्रकार हैं:
-डीपीडीपी अधिनियम की धारा 44(3) धारा 8(1)(जे) में दी गई छूट को सूचना रोकने के व्यापक प्रावधान से प्रतिस्थापित करती है, और "जनहित" के प्रावधान को हटाती है। यह सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरणों को सूचना को "व्यक्तिगत" के रूप में वर्गीकृत करके, चाहे उसका सार्वजनिक महत्व कुछ भी हो, सूचना देने से इनकार करने का अधिकार देती है।
-आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1) के उस प्रावधान को हटाना, जो यह अनिवार्य करता है कि संसद या राज्य विधानमंडल को अस्वीकार न की जा सकने वाली सूचना किसी भी व्यक्ति को अस्वीकार नहीं की जाएगी - लोकतंत्र के लिए चिंताजनक है।
-डीपीडीपी अधिनियम में 'व्यक्तिगत डेटा' की व्यापक परिभाषा और जनहित के अधिकार का अभाव, आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 4 के तहत सक्रिय प्रकटीकरण को सीमित करता है।
इसमें आगे कहा गया है,
"आरटीआई अधिनियम भ्रष्टाचार के विरुद्ध एक शक्तिशाली हथियार था, जो सरकारी अधिकारियों को कदाचार के प्रति सचेत करता था। यह संशोधन उस निवारक प्रभाव को कमज़ोर करता है। यह संशोधन सूचना विषमता पैदा करता है जो सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरणों और संभावित रूप से भ्रष्ट अधिकारियों के पक्ष में है। सार्वजनिक गतिविधियों से आंतरिक रूप से जुड़ी व्यक्तिगत जानकारी तक पहुंच को प्रतिबंधित करके, यह नागरिकों और निगरानी निकायों से शक्ति संतुलन को हटा देता है, जिससे सरकार को जवाबदेह ठहराना कठिन हो जाता है। यह सीधे तौर पर आरटीआई अधिनियम के मूल उद्देश्य को कमजोर करता है।"
अधिकारियों को किसी भी डेटा को व्यक्तिगत डेटा के रूप में वर्गीकृत करने का अधिकार देता है, जिससे उसे प्रकटीकरण से छूट मिलती है।
पत्र में कहा गया है कि डीपीडीपी अधिनियम की धारा 44(3) आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(जे) में व्यापक संशोधन करती है, जिससे इसे केवल इस प्रकार पढ़ा जाता है, "(जे) वह सूचना जो व्यक्तिगत जानकारी से संबंधित है।"
इसमें कहा गया है कि पाठ्य में यह परिवर्तन मामूली लग सकता है, लेकिन यह इसके मूल स्वरूप और उद्देश्य को मौलिक रूप से बदल देता है क्योंकि यह महत्वपूर्ण योग्यता-वाक्यों को हटा देता है,
"जिसके प्रकटीकरण का किसी सार्वजनिक गतिविधि या हित से कोई संबंध नहीं है, या जो व्यक्ति की निजता का अनुचित उल्लंघन करेगा।"
हालांकि आरटीआई अधिनियम स्वयं "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" को परिभाषित नहीं करता है, डीपीडीपी अधिनियम "व्यक्तिगत डेटा" को व्यापक रूप से "किसी व्यक्ति के बारे में ऐसा कोई भी डेटा जो ऐसे डेटा द्वारा या उसके संबंध में पहचाना जा सकता है" के रूप में परिभाषित करता है।
पत्र में कहा गया है कि यह व्यापक और अस्पष्ट परिभाषा, जब आरटीआई पर निहित रूप से लागू होती है, तो सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरणों को "किसी व्यक्ति से संबंधित लगभग किसी भी डेटा को "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" के रूप में वर्गीकृत करने में सक्षम बनाती है, जिससे उसे प्रकटीकरण से छूट मिलती है"। इसमें कहा गया है:
"इसमें सरकारी अधिकारियों के वेतन, शैक्षिक योग्यता, अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई और संपत्ति के रिकॉर्ड शामिल हो सकते हैं, जो पहले सुलभ थे। 'व्यक्तिगत जानकारी' की अस्पष्टता, और मूल धारा 8(1)(j) में योग्यताओं को हटाना, एक महत्वपूर्ण कानूनी खामी है। यह विशिष्ट मानदंडों के आधार पर प्रकटीकरण न करने का औचित्य सिद्ध करने का भार सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरण पर डालता है, और अब आरटीआई आवेदक को यह साबित करना होगा कि जानकारी 'व्यक्तिगत' नहीं है। इस प्रकार, यह आरटीआई अधिनियम के खुलेपन के सिद्धांत को मौलिक रूप से बदल देता है और पीआईओ के लिए जानकारी को छिपाने का एक उपयुक्त वातावरण बनाता है।"
इसमें यह भी कहा गया है कि धारा 8(1)(j) से जनहित अधिरोहण को पूरी तरह से हटा दिया गया है, जिसका अर्थ है कि भले ही कुछ व्यक्तिगत जानकारी का प्रकटीकरण अत्यधिक जनहित में हो, अब इसे केवल इसलिए पूरी तरह से अस्वीकार किया जा सकता है क्योंकि यह 'व्यक्तिगत जानकारी' से संबंधित है।
धारा 8(1)(j) में संशोधन क्या शामिल करता है?
यह संशोधन सार्वजनिक प्रासंगिकता की परवाह किए बिना सभी व्यक्तिगत जानकारी की सुरक्षा करता है। ऐसी जानकारी को सभी मामलों में अस्वीकार किया जा सकता है यदि वह व्यक्तिगत जानकारी से संबंधित हो। सार्वजनिक हित से संबंधित होने पर भी कोई खुलासा नहीं किया जा सकता है और यद्यपि व्यक्तिगत जानकारी अपरिभाषित है, फिर भी इसकी व्यापक व्याख्या की जा सकती है।
'पत्रकारों पर नकारात्मक प्रभाव', संभावित भारी दंड.
पत्र में कहा गया है कि ये संशोधन स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता और प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता के लिए गंभीर खतरा पैदा करते हैं। इसमें कहा गया है कि पत्रकारों को डर है कि यह अधिनियम नियमित रिपोर्टिंग को आपराधिक बना देगा और समाचार कवरेज के लिए सहमति की आवश्यकता होगी, जो खोजी पत्रकारिता के लिए अव्यावहारिक है, खासकर दंगों, हिरासत में मौतों या भ्रष्टाचार घोटालों जैसी स्थितियों में।
पत्र में कहा गया है, "डीपीडीपी अधिनियम की "डेटा प्रिंसिपल" (किसी समाचार लेख में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति) और "डेटा फ़िड्यूशरी" (उस जानकारी को संभालने वाला पत्रकार) की परिभाषाओं का अर्थ है कि किसी का नाम उद्धृत करना या फ़ोटो लेना भी व्यक्तिगत डेटा का प्रसंस्करण माना जा सकता है, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप ₹250 करोड़ या ₹500 करोड़ तक का भारी जुर्माना हो सकता है।"
सोशल ऑडिट पर इसका क्या प्रभाव पड़ता है
पूर्व जज ने कहा है कि सामाजिक लेखा परीक्षा, जो लोक कल्याणकारी योजनाओं के कार्यान्वयन में पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही सुनिश्चित करने के लिए अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण है, लाभार्थियों, व्यय और सेवा वितरण के बारे में जानकारी प्राप्त करने की क्षमता पर निर्भर करती है।
पत्र में कहा गया है कि यदि इस "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" को अब छूट दे दी जाती है, तो लेखा परीक्षा के लिए आवश्यक डेटा अप्राप्य हो जाएगा, जिससे सामाजिक लेखा परीक्षा असंभव हो जाएगी।
इस बात का उल्लेख करते हुए कि ये संशोधन जमीनी स्तर पर जवाबदेही को प्रभावित करेंगे, पत्र में आगे कहा गया है:
"व्यक्तिगत जानकारी के प्रकटीकरण पर पूर्ण प्रतिबंध लगाकर, ये संशोधन सामाजिक लेखा परीक्षा और सार्वजनिक सेवा वितरण के सत्यापन को कमजोर कर देंगे। उदाहरणों में राशन वितरण धोखाधड़ी का पर्दाफाश करना या सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणालियों में "अप्रत्याशित लाभार्थियों" की पहचान करना शामिल है, जो पहले आरटीआई अनुरोधों के माध्यम से प्राप्त किए जाते थे।"
संशोधन संवैधानिक सिद्धांतों का उल्लंघन कैसे करते हैं
पत्र में कहा गया है कि निजता के किसी भी उल्लंघन या मौलिक अधिकारों पर प्रतिबंध को त्रि-आयामी आनुपातिकता मानदंड को पूरा करना होगा: वैधता, वैध राज्य उद्देश्य, और पुट्टस्वामी मामले में निर्धारित आनुपातिकता।
इसमें आगे कहा गया है, "यद्यपि डीपीडीपी अधिनियम वैधता प्रदान करता है, लेकिन जनहित को दरकिनार किए बिना व्यक्तिगत जानकारी के प्रकटीकरण पर पूर्ण प्रतिबंध, आनुपातिकता के इस अंग को विफल कर देता है।"
-इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि सभी "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" के प्रकटीकरण से पूर्ण छूट, किसी व्यक्ति को निजता के अनुचित उल्लंघन से बचाने के वैध राज्य उद्देश्य से तर्कसंगत रूप से जुड़ी नहीं है।
-दूसरा, मूल धारा 8(1)(j) के विपरीत, जो गोपनीयता संरक्षण के लिए एक कम प्रतिबंधात्मक और प्रभावी तंत्र के रूप में कार्य करती थी, यह संशोधन एक पूर्ण प्रतिबंध लगाता है, यह मानकर कि सभी व्यक्तिगत जानकारी, संदर्भ या सार्वजनिक प्रासंगिकता की परवाह किए बिना, समान और सर्वोपरि गोपनीयता संवेदनशीलता रखती है, संभवतः सबसे अधिक प्रतिबंधात्मक साधन अपनाता है।
-अंततः, सार्वजनिक सरोकार के मामलों में जनता के सूचना के अधिकार के पूर्ण हनन की कीमत पर प्राप्त व्यापक गोपनीयता संरक्षण का लाभ अनुपातहीन है।
नागरिकों को सूचना के उनके मौलिक अधिकार से वंचित करता है
पत्र में कहा गया है कि यह संशोधन नागरिकों को सूचना के उनके मौलिक अधिकार से वंचित करता है, "जो अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता [अनुच्छेद 19(1)(a)] और जीवन एवं व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार (अनुच्छेद 21) का एक अभिन्न अंग है"।
पत्र में कहा गया है कि जनहित को दरकिनार किए बिना "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" के लिए व्यापक छूट का प्रावधान, सूचित सार्वजनिक संवाद और लोकतांत्रिक भागीदारी के लिए आवश्यक सूचना के प्रवाह को अनुचित रूप से प्रतिबंधित करता है।
इसमें कहा गया है कि सूचना का अधिकार एक मौलिक अधिकार है, और इस पर कोई भी प्रतिबंध उचित होना चाहिए और इस प्रकार जनहित की परवाह किए बिना "व्यक्तिगत जानकारी" पर इस प्रकार का व्यापक प्रतिबंध एक अनुचित प्रतिबंध है, जो नागरिकों को उनके मौलिक अधिकार से सीधे वंचित करता है।
पत्र में दावा किया गया है, "इससे पता चलता है कि संशोधन महज एक नीतिगत विकल्प नहीं है, बल्कि एक संवैधानिक उल्लंघन है।"
लोकतांत्रिक निगरानी को कमज़ोर करता है
पत्र में कहा गया है कि आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1) के मूल प्रावधान में कहा गया है, "इसके अतिरिक्त, यह भी प्रावधान है कि जो जानकारी संसद या राज्य विधानमंडल को देने से इनकार नहीं की जा सकती, उसे किसी भी व्यक्ति को देने से इनकार नहीं किया जाएगा।"
इस प्रकार, इस प्रावधान में अनिवार्य रूप से कहा गया है कि जनता का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाली विधायिका के लिए जो कुछ भी सुलभ है, वह "लोगों के लिए भी प्रत्यक्ष रूप से सुलभ होना चाहिए"।
इसलिए, पत्र में कहा गया है कि इस प्रावधान को हटाना "न केवल एक प्रक्रियात्मक परिवर्तन है, बल्कि लोकप्रिय संप्रभुता के सिद्धांत पर एक प्रतीकात्मक और ठोस हमला है।"
स्वप्रेरणा प्रकटीकरण आदेश के विपरीत
पत्र में कहा गया है कि आरटीआई अधिनियम न केवल अनुरोध पर प्रकटीकरण को अनिवार्य बनाता है, बल्कि सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरणों पर स्वप्रेरणा से सामान्य जनहित की जानकारी को सक्रिय रूप से प्रकट करने, प्रसारित करने और प्रकाशित करने का कर्तव्य भी डालता है।
पत्र में कहा गया है कि डीपीडीपी अधिनियम डिजिटल व्यक्तिगत डेटा की सुरक्षा पर "प्रकट रूप से केंद्रित" है, लेकिन इसने आरटीआई अधिनियम के तहत वर्षों से बनाए गए "सक्रिय पारदर्शिता तंत्रों को नष्ट करने" के गंभीर और अनपेक्षित परिणामों को नज़रअंदाज़ कर दिया है। इसमें कहा गया है,
"डीपीडीपी अधिनियम व्यक्तिगत डेटा को व्यापक रूप से किसी व्यक्ति के बारे में किसी भी डेटा के रूप में परिभाषित करता है, जिसकी पहचान ऐसे डेटा से या उसके संबंध में हो सकती है... "व्यक्तिगत डेटा" के प्रसंस्करण के लिए कठोर सहमति की आवश्यकताएं आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 4 के स्वप्रेरणा प्रकटीकरण अधिदेश के साथ एक बुनियादी टकराव पैदा करती हैं। धारा 4 के तहत सक्रिय रूप से प्रकट की गई कई प्रकार की जानकारी, जैसे कल्याणकारी योजनाओं के लिए लाभार्थियों की सूची, कर्मचारी विवरण, या संपत्ति रिकॉर्ड, में स्वाभाविक रूप से व्यक्तिगत डेटा होता है"।
इस प्रकार, पत्र में सिफारिश की गई है कि डीपीडीपी अधिनियम की धारा 44(3), जो आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(जे) में संशोधन करती है, "तुरंत निरस्त की जानी चाहिए"।

इसके अलावा, डीपीडीपी अधिनियम में यह स्पष्ट रूप से स्पष्ट किया जाना चाहिए कि आरटीआई अधिनियम भविष्य में किसी भी गलत व्याख्या को रोकने के लिए पूरी ताकत से लागू होता है, जो आरटीआई अधिनियम की प्रभावशीलता को कमजोर कर सकता है।