Railways has no record of project review meetings: Ministry in response to RTI query : Jeyalakshmi Ramanujam

New Indian Express: Madurai: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.
Speaking to TNIE, Krishnan said there has been no progress on eight new line projects in Tamil Nadu for more than a decade, and 15 doubling projects are in progress.

There is no record of minutes of the meetings chaired by the minister of railways in the past five years regarding the status of several projects across the country, the ministry of railways has stated in a reply to a RTI query.
In his reply to RTI activist Dayanand Krishnan, the chief public information officer (PIO) Deepak Singh stated "The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not part of the records. No record of the meetings conducted by the Minister of Railways to review the projects is maintained in this office. Only such information as is available and existing and held by the Public Authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided."
Speaking to TNIE, Krishnan said there has been no progress on eight new line projects in Tamil Nadu for more than a decade, and 15 doubling projects are in progress. "The RTI reply revealed there was a lapse in the monitoring and we wanted to know if periodic review meetings were conducted by the railway minister to monitor the projects sanctioned and the status of progress in TN," he said.
He further said it was shocking how the Ministry of Railways is monitoring projects without having the records of review meetings. "The railway ministry must share details of all review meetings in its portal once in three months in a transparent manner," he said.
Dakshin Railway Employees Union(DREU) Divisional Coordinator R Sankara Narayanan said. "Usually pink books will be released three days after the railway budget is presented in Parliament. Though the budget was tabled in February, till now the ministry has not released the pink book that will contain details of ongoing projects. Even MPs would not know the details," he said.
Requesting anonymity, an official in Southern Railway said the minister has been conducting review meetings during his visits to several states. The general manager of Southern Railway periodically conducts meetings with MPs and sends proposals to the ministry, the official added.

Karnataka government blacklists 26 RTI activists

The Hindu: Karnataka: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.
The activists have been “blackmailing” officials and elected representatives and delaying public work, allege Opposition MLAs

H. K. Patil, Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, speaking
during the Karnataka Legislative Session, in Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru, on Tuesday. 

Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H.K. Patil informed the Legislative Assembly that 26 Right to Information (RTI) activists have been blacklisted for “misusing the Act”.
BJP MLAs V. Sunil Kumar, and S. Suresh Kumar, and, expelled BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal claimed that many RTI activists had been misusing the Act and targeting government officials, contractors and engineers for personal gain. Mr. Sunil Kumar maintained that activists had not been allowing the public works to be completed, seeking one or the other information related to development work.
Mr. Yatnal said activists have been “blackmailing” officials and elected representatives and delaying public works. Claiming that RTI activists had been the root cause of corruption, he demanded a probe into disproportionate sources of income and assets owned by them.
In a reply to K. Manantesh Shivanand (Congress) during the question hour on Tuesday, Mr. Patil said the government sacked State Information Commissioner Ravindra Gurunath Dhakappa, posted in the Kalaburagi Bench, after he was arrested by the Lokayukta Police as he allegedly received ₹1 lakh bribe through an online transfer for delivering a favourable order to an applicant.
Mr. Suresh Kumar said the Act was a powerful weapon for ensuring transparency in administration, but the activists have been “misusing it and harassing officials” seeking building plans and other documents.

Karnataka govt open to reviewing RTI rules amid misuse concerns

The Week: Karnataka: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.

The Karnataka government on Tuesday informed the Legislative Assembly that it was open to reviewing rules under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, after MLAs across party lines voiced concerns that the law was being misused by activists to “harass” and “blackmail” officials.
Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil made the statement while replying to a question by Bailhongal Congress MLA Mahantesh Koujalagi, on behalf of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, during the Question Hour.
"RTI is a revolutionary legislation by the central government to bring transparency in administration. But, the state government can frame rules under the act. If we come to know about the misuse, we can take action," he said.
“By reviewing the rules, if harassment can be prevented and it will benefit the RTI activists (who are genuine), we can discuss in this regard with the Chief Minister and we can do it... We will think about steps to limit the misuse of RTI."
Raising the issue, Koujalagi said the RTI Act was enacted with good intentions, but was also being misused, and also suggested that the government consider increasing the RTI application fees.
"We see RTI applications being filed through proxies. Repeated applications are filed by some people just to harass officials. The cost per page is fixed at Rs 2, this is causing the problem. For BPL applicants, there is no fee for up to 100 pages. This is leading to a lot of misuse," he added.
In some cases, information spanning 20 years is being sought under the RTI Act, forcing assignment of an official solely to provide details, he said and urged the government to address such issues.
In response, Patil said the government has blacklisted 26 RTI activists and noted that State Information Commissioner Ravindra Gurunath Dhakappa was dismissed after being trapped by the Lokayukta.
He, however, said no written complaints of harassment were received from officials. He also said the government would consider revising the RTI fees.
Intervening, BJP MLA Sunil Kumar said RTI Act was misused by some individuals for personal gain rather than public interest.
Bijapur City MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal too remarked that RTI has become “a big business” for some people.
“They blackmail officials, elected representatives and contractors,” he said, urging the government to investigate assets owned by RTI activists, and take action against them.
Senior BJP MLA Suresh Kumar said, RTI applicants should have a valid reason to seek information, and this should be considered while framing rules.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

As Houses pass Sports Governance Bill, recalling BCCI opposition to RTI : Written by Vineet Bhalla

 Indian Express: New Delhi: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.

Rajya Sabha cleared the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, on Tuesday, a day after its passage in Lok Sabha.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh posted on X that the proposed law would “result in the extreme centralisation of sports administration”, and that “BCCI will get most favoured treatment, not subject to any laws of the land like the RTI”.
Under the provisions of the Bill, only a sports body that receives financial assistance from the state qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This effectively excludes the BCCI because it does not receive any direct financial aid from the government.
The world’s richest cricket board has over the years resisted being labelled as a  public authority, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it in the ambit of India’s transparency law.
The Bill and exception:
The proposed law will provide for the recognition of national sports bodies and regulate their functioning, and will align sports governance in India with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and with international best practices.
The aim is to bring transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up hosting, collaboration, and funding opportunities. Since cricket will soon be an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
Clause 15(2) of the Bill that was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 23 said that a “recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers”.
This broad definition would include the BCCI and make its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
A subsequent amendment to the draft, however, said that a recognised sports organisation “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the government shall be considered a public authority only “with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance”.
This change, making government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively put the BCCI out of the ambit of the RTI Act.
Cricket board & RTI Act:
The BCCI has for long argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a “public authority”. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry; legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government.
However, the BCCI’s position that its financial and organisational independence of the state places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies, has been contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
In its 275th Report (2018) titled ‘Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005’, the Law Commission of India recommended that BCCI should be classified as a public authority, pointing to the significant indirect financial assistance it had received from the government over the years.
The Report noted that between 1997 and 2007, the board had received tax exemptions to the tune of more than Rs 2,100 crore due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The foregoing of this revenue amounted to indirect funding for the board, the Commission argued.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates; for example, in Himachal Pradesh, the land for a stadium was reportedly leased for Re 1 per month.
The Supreme Court has noted that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. In a 2015 judgment, the court noted that it selects the teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols, and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government.
A committee led by Justice R M Lodha, which was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms in cricket, described the functioning of the BCCI as a “closed door and back-room affair”, and said that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act”.
In 2016, the top court referred the matter to the Law Commission, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission submitted its report in 2018 (mentioned above), and that same year, the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed a landmark order declaring the BCCI as a “public authority”, and directing the board to set up a mechanism to handle queries under the RTI Act.
The BCCI challenged the order in the Madras High Court, which stayed its implementation, leaving the matter in legal limbo.
If BCCI were under RTI:
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could seek information covering not just financial matters, but the entire gamut of the board’s operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the process of appointment of officials and coaches, and the minutes of BCCI meetings. This would force the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, and not just to its constituent members.
In its 2015 judgment, the Supreme Court had held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.

Karnataka High Court criticises conduct of officials of Nirmithi Kendra in denying information under RTI Act

 The Hindu: Bengaluru: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.
Court declares that RTI Act applies to these kendras as they are public authorities on being sponsored and controlled by the Government

The High Court of Karnataka has criticised the conduct of officials of the Nirmithi Kendra in attempting to suppress transparency by claiming that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is not applicable to the kendra, even though it is sponsored and controlled by the State government through the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (RDPR) Department.
The court has also imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, for denying information under the RTI Act by claiming that it is not a public authority but a private society.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order, while dismissing a petition filed by the project director of Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, who had questioned the State Information Commission’s 2017 direction for providing information sought by some persons under the RTI Act.
The court noted that the government had set up Nirmithi Kendras for developing low-cost technology alternatives for rural housing, and its control and supervision is under many top officials of the zilla panchayats and the district administrations belonging to the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service and the Karnataka Administrative Service,
Besides, these kendras are being funded by HUDCO, which is a government entity, and contracts are given to the kendra by the State government, and there is a preference for these kendras to carry out works of the government, the court pointed out.
A perusal of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act would indicate that it is not only funding, but also control, which would have to be considered to determine whether it is a public authority or not, the court said, while pointing out that not only the funding for these kendras is provided by the government, but the works carried out by them are also considered government’s works.
“The attempt made by the officers of Nirmithi Kendra to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, the Nirmithi Kendra, Chitradurga, has successfully avoided disclosure of information and details,” the court said, while declaring that Nirmithi Kendras as public authorities under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Nirmiti Kendra is public authority under RTI Act: Karnataka HC

Times of India: Bengaluru: Wednesday, 13^Th August 2025.

The Karnataka high court has ruled that Nirmiti Kendra, established by the state govt and controlled by govt officers, qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Additionally, it imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner, Nirmiti Kendra at Medahalli in Chitradurga, for its refusal to disclose information.
The Nirmiti Kendra had moved the HC against the State Information Commission's Aug 29, 2017 order to provide information sought by applicant HR Thimmaiah, the president of Bharath Krishik Samaj, Hiriyur, Chitradurga district. The information commission had also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the kendra.
The Medahalli Nimriti Kendra refused to furnish information, arguing that as it was not a public authority, it was not subject to the RTI Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the rural development and panchayath raj department initiated the establishment of Nirmiti Kendras with funding from HUDCO and a govt order sanctioned the setup of seven such kendras.
He pointed out that the chief executive officer of the zilla panchayat serves as the chairman of the governing body, and records show that Nirmiti Kendras are under the control and supervision of govt officers. Funding originates from HUDCO, a govt entity, and govt contracts are issued for works undertaken by the kendras, which prioritise govt projects.
"In that view of the matter, the finding and conclusion of the Karnataka Information Commission and the direction issued to furnish the document sought cannot be faulted. It is not expected of a governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmiti Kendra, who are govt officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmiti Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act. All the govt offices and departments are subject to the RTI Act and are required to make available the information sought," ruled the HC.
"The attempt made by the officers to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, Nirmiti Kendra avoided the disclosure of information. I'm of the opinion that the costs would also have to be imposed on Nirmiti Kendra," Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted.

Education department official fined Rs25k for delay in RTI reply by a year

Times of India: Gurgaon: Tuesday, 12^Th August 2025.
Haryana State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed the maximum permissible penalty of Rs 25,000 on block education official Anita Chauhan for failing to provide information under Right to Information (RTI) Act within the stipulated 30-day period and instead delivering it nearly a year late.

Chauhan, who is also a deemed state public information officer (SPIO), was fined on June 12 after Saroj Yadav, a teacher, filed a complaint against her. Yadav's RTI application, filed on Aug 26, 2023, sought information on investigative reports, related to the block education office, prepared by block education officer.
The delay in dispatch of the information to the complainant came to light during hearings in 2024, when Yadav informed SIC that she only received the data after the commission issued a show-cause notice. "What's the benefit of the information being in my favour if I don't get it on time?" Yadav said.
The fine imposed by SIC in this case is notable as the amount is unprecedented. Gurgaon education department has not been imposed penalties exceeding Rs 5,000 before this.
Meanwhile, in her written submission to SIC, Chauhan admitted to the lapse, attributing the delay to a heavy workload and her unfamiliarity with RTI provisions. She also offered an unconditional apology. However, state information commissioner Kulbir Chhikara found her explanation "insufficient". His order referred to a 2014 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that mandates fines for delays without reasonable cause.
Proceedings were also initiated against SPIO-cum-block education officer Sudesh Kumar, but he was later exonerated by the commission after he said that Chauhan was responsible for diary and dispatch work alongside her RTI duties and had "overlooked" sending the reply.
The penalty amount of Rs 25,000 will be recovered by director of secondary education, Haryana, and the district education officer, Gurgaon.
This amount must be deposited into the commission's designated account by Oct 31, 2025, with the registrar of SIC tasked with monitoring compliance.

How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner : Written by Vineet Bhalla

 The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 12^Th August 2025.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a “public authority” under the RTI Act, despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission and the Central Information Commission.

Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen
of India could file a query for information on its functioning.
This would cover the entire gamut of its operations. (File photo)

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025.
According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a “public authority” under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government.
Over the years, the world’s richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law.
The new law & an exception for BCCI
The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices.
This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law.
At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions.
The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a “recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.” This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny.
In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the government shall be considered a public authority only “with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance”.
This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny.
BCCI & RTI: an old battle
The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a “public authority”. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government.
This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government’s regulatory framework for public bodies.
This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board’s claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered.
It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding.
The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month.
Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs “public functions” that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the “tacit concurrence” of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015.
Previous recommendations not implemented
A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body’s functioning as a “closed door and back-room affair.” It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny.
The committee recommended that the “legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,” stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency.
The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a “public authority” and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries.
However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation leaving the matter in a legal limbo.
What BCCI being under RTI would mean
Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations.
The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members.
The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI’s affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.

India’s Transparency Quandary: RTI versus DPDP - By Paakhhi Garg and Nachiketa Mittal

 SCC Online: New Delhi: Tuesday, 12^Th August 2025.

Since 2005, the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) in India has served as a guiding light for our democratic nation that enabled its people to break the formerly impenetrable barriers of official transparency. However, a new amendment in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), proposed under Section 44(3), poses a danger to this transparency. The DPDP Act has the potential to upside the delicate balance between the rights to information and privacy by significantly changing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The “larger public interest” as the safeguard:
The original text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provided a crucial exemption:
8.(1)(j) Exemption from disclosure of information. information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
This final provision, which can be referred to as the “larger public interest”, overrides an essential safety measure. It recognised that although individual privacy is inviolable, there are some cases in which the public’s right to know really outweighs a person’s privacy rights, especially when it comes to public employees and government operations. This clause requires a diligent and meticulous case-by-case analysis to ensure the guarantee of the release of the relevant data, which is essential for combating corruption, promoting sound governance, and holding public officials responsible.
However, this well-balanced legislation has been superseded by a relatively straightforward exception under Section 44(3)(j) of the DPDP Act: information which relates to personal information. By removing the “larger public interest”, this legislative reform essentially creates a near-complete exemption for any “personal information” from disclosure under the RTI Act, regardless of its relevance to public activities or its importance to public accountability.
Pre-DPDP Act judicial precedents:
Indian courts and Public Information Commissions had carefully navigated Section 8(1)(j) before this amendment, constantly seeking to harmonise transparency with privacy concerns.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, maintained an option for disclosure if a “larger public interest” could be proven, even if it confirmed that a public servant’s data, including assets, income, and service records, was usually excluded. This landmark ruling emphasised how important the public interest test is.
Privacy was then unquestionably established as a fundamental right under Article 216 of the Constitution by the historic K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India case. Significantly, this decision did not support a complete ban on the sharing of personal data. Instead, it emphasised that, like all fundamental rights, privacy is not unrestricted and can still be subject to reasonable limitations if those limitations meet the severe requirements of necessity, proportionality, legality, and legitimate intent. With its inherent public interest overriding, many legal academics argue that the original Section 8(1)(j) was a proportional provision that was entirely in line with the Puttaswamy principles. The modification to the DPDP Act that removes this proportionality threshold for personal data goes against the prudent strategy advocated by the Puttaswamy ruling.
Information on carrying out public tasks by public personnel, even if it is fundamentally personal, may be disclosed if it really serves a larger public interest, according to the law that preceded the DPDP Act. This long-standing legal interpretation is categorically overturned by the new legislation, which marks a significant move towards more governmental transparency.
The ominous shadow of increased information denial
This alteration has wide-ranging and extremely unsettling practical effects:
(i) It is concerning that public monitoring of servants is eroding. Under the broad definition of “personal information”, it is now possible to systematically withhold information on public personnel assets, qualifications, disciplinary proceedings, attendance, performance appraisals, and transfer details all of which were previously subject to the discriminating public interest test. This essentially creates an impenetrable wall around public servants, making it very difficult to examine their behaviour and stop corruption.
(ii) It is common to deny requests for information that is in proximity to personal data, such as company details, in a public project, people who are getting governmental scheme benefits or exact roles played by the individuals. This shift will surely weaken public oversight in India, where the Government’s accountability is hard to witness.
(iii) In India, the Government’s accountability is frequently out of reach; this change significantly curbs citizens’ essential ability to be a watchdog because the principal method for disclosing them through the RTI Act has been seriously hampered. Various cases, related to false credentials, fake caste certificates, illegal asset accumulation, or unreported conflicts of interest by public officials may now continue to be hidden.
Consequential challenges for public interest litigation and investigative journalism
The repercussions of this amendment directly reverberate through the foundational pillars of democratic oversight:
(i) Hindrance to public interest litigation (PIL): When the actions of specific public officials are at the core of the problem, PILs usually depend on information gleaned through RTI requests to reveal systematic corruption, environmental violations, or human rights abuses. The new clause will make it much more challenging to obtain the necessary proof, which might put a stop to significant public interest litigation (PILs) that are meant to support good governance.
(ii) Crippling investigative journalism: Investigative journalists consistently use the RTI Act as a vital tool to reveal wrongdoing in the government apparatus. They carefully compile data from many sources, and often, a key element of their investigations is personal information on public officials or others involved in public activities. Because of the broad exemption, journalists will be forced to rely more on anonymous sources, which might increase the risks for whistleblowers and make it much harder to verify information. This problem is made worse by the DPDP Act’s present absence of notable exclusions designed for journalistic reasons, in contrast to many other international data protection laws.
A global perspective: Public interest tests in foreign jurisdictions
A fundamental principle of freedom of information (FOI) legislation in democratic politics, the “public interest test” is a crucial tool for striking a balance between privacy and transparency. Many countries specifically include such a test, especially for exemptions about personal data:
(i) United Kingdom (Freedom of Information Act, 2000): Personal information is covered under Section 40 of the UK Freedom of Information Act, 200011. Even if the matter is considered personal data, it may still be published if the public interest in doing so clearly surpasses the public interest in keeping it private. This is known as a “qualified exemption”, which acknowledges privacy. This criterion is frequently used by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), for example, when dealing with public officials’ actions when there is a strong public interest in accountability.
(ii) Canada (Access to Information Act)12: Similar exclusions for personal information are included in Canadian federal and provincial access-to-information legislation. Many, however, include clear clauses requiring disclosure in cases where a “compelling public interest” clearly exceeds any privacy violations. Certain provincial laws, for instance, require the head of a public body to provide personal information if the public benefit in doing so surpasses the private interest of the individual.
(iii) Australia (Freedom of Information Act, 1982): A similar structure governs Australia’s Freedom of Information Act, 198213, which includes exemptions for personal data that are often based on a “public interest test”. The competent authorities are required to strike a balance between elements that support disclosure (such as fostering accountability and enhancing public discourse) and those that work against disclosure (such as commercial prejudice and unjustified invasion of privacy). When the public interest is considered substantial, decisions tend to favour disclosure.
These countries mostly use a public interest balancing test or a proportionality test. The following are typical components of this analytical framework:
(i) Determining the public interest in disclosure: What concrete advantages would the public experience from knowing this information? (for instance, encouraging responsibility, exposing wrongdoing, and influencing policy discussions).
(ii) Determining the possible harm in disclosure: What unfavourable outcomes may result from making this information public? (for instance, excessive privacy invasion, harm to a business, or endangering someone’s safety).
(iii) Comparing conflicting interests: Is the public’s interest in disclosure greater than the possible risk? The information must be made public if the answer is yes. Importantly, the burden of proving public interest is sometimes placed on the public authority to defend the information’s concealment.
Conclusion: A troubling retreat from openness
The DPDP Act’s amend Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act marks an essential shift from the maximum disclosure and accountability tenets that have long served as the foundation for India’s transparency laws. Whether on purpose or accidentally, the legislators may have created a shield of opacity by eliminating the “larger public interest” override, which would seriously hinder the people’s natural right to examine the behaviour of public officials and governmental acts.
Although protecting people’s privacy is unquestionably crucial, the strategy now in use places an excessive amount of emphasis on privacy at the expenses of transparency, especially when it comes to public affairs. This emerging crack in its transparency framework is a danger to a dynamic democracy like India, which heavily depends on citizen awareness and informed public debate. It requires an immediate reassessment and possibly a legislative recalibration to make sure that the crucial balance between the rights to information and privacy is not only restored but also permitted to thrive in tandem rather than competing with strong public accountability.

National Sports Governance Bill 2025: BCCI escaping RTI Act and other key takeaways from landmark act

 Firstpost: New Delhi: Tuesday, 12^Th August 2025.
Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya hailed the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 and National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025 as the “single biggest reform in Indian sports since independence”, with both getting passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
In a landmark moment for Indian sport, the National Sports Governance Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday, nearly three weeks after it was introduced in the lower house of the Parliament.

Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya

The law was hailed as the “single biggest reform in Indian sports since independence” by Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya amid protests from the Opposition over the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Also introduced on the same day was the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025, after the Lok Sabha reassembled at 2 pm after an early adjournment due to the protests.
So what exactly are the two sports bills passed in Monday all about? Here’s are some of the key features:
BCCI remains immune to RTI Act
The spotlight was firmly on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which is the weathiest cricket board in the world and sports organisation in India, when the National Sports Governance Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha last month. The big question at the time was whether the BCCI would finally come under the ambit of the RTI Act in order to become more transparent and accountable.
The cricket board had vehemently opposed its inclusion in the RTI Act and has since got its way, with the Sports Ministry amending the bill to ensure that only those organisations that receive government funding or support will come under the act.
National Sports Board to oversee functioning of individual federations
The Bill also seeks to form a National Sports Board (NSB) in order to create a stringent system of accountability. Going forward, all National Sports Federations (NSFs) will have to attain the NSB’s recognition if they are to receive funds from the central government.
The NSB will have the power to de-recognise a national federation if they fail to hold elections for its Executive Committee or have committed “gross irregularities in the election procedures”, or have failed to publish annual audited accounts or have “misused, misapplied or misappropriated public funds”.
While the BCCI has avoided the RTI Act for now, it will come under the NSB’s ambit for a change.
And in a departure from the National Sports Code that had set an age cap of 70 years, administrators can contest elections in NSFs up to the age of 75 if the international bodies’ statutes and bylaws allow for it.
National Sports Tribunal to settle disputes
The National Sports Tribunal (NST) will be separate from the National Sports Board. While the latter will be setup to monitor the functioning of the individual sports federations, the NST will be setup exclusively to solve sporting disputes in the country.
The Tribunal will have the powers of a civil court and will decide disputes ranging from athlete selection to federation elections. Once setup, the NST’s decisions will only be challenged at the Supreme Court.
The NST thus could be viewed as India’s equivalent of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Lausanne-based body solving sporting disputes at a global level.
WADA’s suggestions to be implemented through anti-doping bill
The National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025 seeks to incorporate changes sought by the World Anti-Doping Agency after the Montreal-based global governing body had earlier objected to “government interference” in the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA).
The Act had originally been passed in 2022 but was put on hold after WADA objected to the institution of a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports which would have had the power to make recommendations to the government on anti-doping regulations and even issue directions to NADA.
The Board has since been retained in the amended bill, but without the power to oversee NADA or its advisory role to the government, citing “operational independence” for the latter.

Telangana high court dismisses man’s RTI plea seeking info on former father-in-law

Times of India: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 12^Th August 2025.
The Telangana high court dismissed an advocate's appeal seeking information pertaining to his former father-in-law, an ex-assistant director in the endowments department, under the RTI Act. He sought detailed records from the income tax department, including statements and notices issued to his former father-in-law during an inquiry into a tax evasion petition.

The advocate (petitioner) stated that he needed the information to use as evidence in a domestic violence case registered against him by his ex-wife. Citing that the information sought was not of any public interest, the high court dismissed his petition.
The case was registered on a complaint from his wife, alleging that her father spent Rs 1.5 crore on her wedding and also purchased around 1.5 kg of gold and 15 kg of silver as gifts for her husband's family. However, they got divorced in 2024 on grounds of proven cruelty by the wife.
Subsequently, the man filed an RTI application with the I-T department seeking details of an inquiry conducted against his father-in-law in connection with siphoning funds from a temple renovation at Uppal Kalan, Hyderabad. The application was dismissed as the information sought falls into the classification of exclusions listed in the RTI Act. Following the dismissal of his appeals, he moved the high court.
Though the petitioner claimed that the RTI dismissal orders at various levels suffered from a lack of application of mind or proper reasoning, the court did not consider the claims.
While emphasising that the petitioner can take defence of the information already supplied to him under the RTI Act in a criminal proceeding, the court noted that the information sought cannot fall into the category of public interest. "The disclosure of such information relating to tax evasion against a third party should not be allowed under the category of public interest," ruled the court, dismissing the petition.

Financial lapses pile up under Chandigarh Housing Board’s roof: RTI

 Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Monday, 11^Th August 2025.
The financial records show that the Chandigarh Housing Board has been holding on to stale cheques worth ₹66 lakh, issued to various stakeholders years ago, but never encashed

Having rolled out no new housing projects for nearly a decade, the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) has also failed to ensure proper handling of public funds, as revealed by documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
As per the balance sheets for 2022-23 and 2023-24, the board has not even finalised its accounts for 2023-24, providing only provisional data.
The financial records show that the board has been holding on to stale cheques worth ₹66 lakh, issued to various stakeholders years ago, but never encashed.
The RTI reply also reveals long-pending unsettled staff advances to seven IAS officers, including Amar Nath, Ankur Garg, KS Wahi, late Mohanjit Singh and Varsha Joshi.
The advances, ranging from ₹5,000 to ₹80,000, have remained outstanding for years. In one case, the board also owes ₹21,000 to former IAS officer Bhupinder Singh.
Financial data further shows that while the board’s revenue fell from ₹127 crore in 2022-23 to ₹85 crore in 2023–24, certain expenditures ballooned.
Diwali gift expenses rose from ₹12.60 lakh in 2022-23 to ₹14.63 lakh in 2023-24, and conveyance costs surged from ₹55 lakh to ₹90 lakh in a single year, despite no new housing projects.
RTI activist RK Garg, who procured the data, alleged that these figures pointed to serious financial mismanagement. He called for a five-year audit of the board’s accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). “The public’s money needs to be safeguarded,” he said.
Repeated attempts to reach CHB secretary Akhil Kumar for comment went unanswered.
Established in 1976, with the primary objective of providing reasonably priced and good quality housing in Chandigarh, CHB had last successfully launched a housing scheme in 2016, when it had offered 200 two-bedroom flats in Sector 51 for ₹69 lakh each. With no successful project over the past decade, the board is struggling to justify its existence.

RTI activists push for wider scope, tougher action on info denials

Times of India: Madurai: Monday, 11^Th August 2025.
The Tamil Nadu RTI Activists' Movement held its state-level conference at the Tamukkam Convention Centre here on Sunday, passing 20 resolutions to strengthen the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and expand its scope.

Former RTI chairman E M S Sudarshana Nachiyappan said exemptions for "sensitive information" had no place in today's information era. "The government should not withhold information when an RTI is filed," he said, citing how RTI had revealed ₹840 crore spent by the Prime Minister on official overseas tours. He noted that an RTI seeking details on China's reported occupation of 10,000 sq km of Indian territory was rejected on "sensitive information" grounds, despite the data being visible on GPS.
Key resolutions included proactive disclosure under Section 4(1)(B) of the RTI Act, faster transfer of applications between departments, protecting applicants' personal details, and penalising public information officers who unlawfully deny requests. Activists also sought to bring private institutions providing essential services under the Act, hold monthly grievance redressal meetings at the district level, and live-stream information commission hearings.
The conference urged the state government to direct all cooperative societies to comply with RTI provisions, expand the online RTI portal to cover all public authorities, and publish annual information commission reports within a year of the financial year's end. They also called for appointing politically unbiased commissioners with integrity and legal expertise.
Other demands included requiring first appellate authorities to conduct direct hearings to resolve most cases locally, handling complaints strictly under Section 18(1) instead of converting them into second appeals and giving priority hearings to senior citizens.
As part of the event, activists filed 5,000 RTI applications across various state departments. Organiser Abdul said the resolutions aimed to make governance more transparent, curb misuse of "sensitive" exemptions, and uphold citizens' right to know in letter and spirit.

RTI Act, though being implemented, should be made fully operational, says former Union Minister

The Hindu: Madurai: Monday, 11^Th August 2025.
It is not just enough to implement the Right To Information (RTI) Act, but it should be made fully operational, said former Union Minister Sudarsana Natchiappan.

Participants of Tamil Nadu RTI Activist Movement filing RTI
petitions at an event in Madurai on Sunday.
Photo Credit: G. MOORTHY

Speaking at the conference organised by the Tamil Nadu RTI Activist Movement here on Sunday, he added that when he was the chairman of the Parliamentary standing committee, he recommended that no fee be charged for seeking RTI information.
“I suggested granting information only upon request through a written letter, but eventually it was not accepted and now fee is being charged for RTI information,” he added.
Some government departments seek an exemption from providing information under RTI Act citing government secrets and personal issues of individuals, he stated.
Mr. Natchiappan noted that in the age of Artificial Intelligence, there were no secrets.
“All information can be obtained using a mobile phone. A news report states that China had occupied 10,000 sq.km of Indian territory, where houses and military installations had been built. On what basis the news agency released this information, noting that it could be found simply by using a mobile phone. There are no secrets anymore. All information is on the internet, and one can get information from the website of any government department,” he added.
Mr. Natchiappan mentioning a Supreme Court judge’s statement about patriotism, he said that judges were accountable to the people and thereby, should deliver verdicts for the people.
“Their salaries and benefits are also paid with public tax money, as are those of MPs and MLAs. Therefore, people should question everyone,” he added.
Stating that the GST law was cruel, he said that they collect a tax of ₹7 for idly. “The GST tax system generates an income of up to ₹10 lakh crore per day. 40% of this tax comes from those living below the poverty line. When people ask for tax information, should they not be given an account? The Right to Information Act has brought about many changes.”
K. Hakeem, an RTI activist and one of the organisers, said that the event was a message to the government that people, by arming the RTI, could change anything and everything.
“As a prelude to what we proclaim, we are to send 5,000 RTIs seeking information from various departments of the government,” he added.

BMC yet to finalise plans for key coastal rd open space parcel: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Sunday, 10^Th August 2025.
BMC has not yet decided on a few of the key details regarding the use of a prime land parcel proposed to be used as open spaces along the coastal road. These details include its entry and exit points, parking facilities, washrooms, and operational timings, according to a Right to Information (RTI) reply.

Responding to an application filed by Nigum Lakhani, a Breach Candy resident, the civic body said that while the development and maintenance of the landscaped area was allotted for 30 years extendable by another 30 years under mutually agreed terms with a voluntary agency, other aspects remain undecided.
BMC in May this year appointed Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) for developing the approximately 70 hectares of open space that was reclaimed along the coastal road. Civic officials estimate that even conservatively, a project of such a large scale may cost the appointed agency around Rs 1000 crores.
The RTI response also stated that suggestions from local residents have not yet been sought or considered on how the space should be developed. Plans and maps detailing the proposed design or layout for the site have not been prepared. The information was provided by the office of the chief engineer (Coastal Road).
The construction of the Mumbai coastal road project, which began around Nov 2018, was to be completed in Nov 2023, almost two years ago. However, delays like the COVID 19 -induced lockdown and a design change owing to resistance from Worli fisherfolk, pushed the deadline of the final leg of the project.
As of now, the entire coastal road project is yet to see full completion. The opening of the promenade is awaited as well.
According to an official, "There was a plan to open the promenade last week, as works on it were already completed." However, theywere not able to secure the chief minister's time to be present for the opening, the official added. About 4.5 km of the 7.5 km promenade may open, as some works are ongoing in the remaining stretch.