#Right to Information Act

The Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar's statutory power under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to access society documents for RTI purposes is not contingent on a prior subjective satisfaction to hold an inquiry. This ensures members of cooperative societies can obtain records such as construction agreements and general body minutes through the RTI route without the Registrar first initiating a formal inquiry.

Karnataka High Court holds that Century Club, operating on land granted by the erstwhile Mysuru Maharaja, qualifies as a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act due to indirect State financing. The ruling expands transparency obligations to private entities benefiting from public resources, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Karnataka High Court rules that a private engineering college receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, quashing orders of the Karnataka Information Commission.

Himachal Pradesh High Court sets aside a Rs. 10,000 penalty under the RTI Act, ruling that personal information of third parties is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless disclosure serves a larger public interest. The judgment reinforces privacy protections while mandating transparency only when accountability outweighs individual rights.

Karnataka High Court sets aside a ₹5,000 penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, ruling that manual compilation of voluminous data justifies delay where no mala fide or urgency is established. The judgment reinforces that penalties must consider administrative realities, not just statutory timelines.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, despite being notified under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, cannot claim exemption because its function is investigating corruption-not intelligence or security. This clarifies that transparency obligations apply to any public body engaged in anti-corruption probes, reinforcing accountability in state investigative agencies.

Karnataka High Court holds that the State Information Commission lacks authority under Section 20 of the RTI Act to direct registration of complaints against Public Information Officers. The ruling reinforces judicial review limits on quasi-judicial bodies and protects PIOs from procedural overreach in RTI disputes.

Public Information Officers cannot evade their duty under the RTI Act by claiming they are not custodians of records-they must actively seek and furnish information. The Calcutta High Court has ruled that attempting to terminate proceedings via unilateral corrigenda violates natural justice and undermines the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a), setting a binding precedent for all SPIOs across India.

Calcutta High Court directs the Transport Department to consider a 20-year unauthorized auto-rickshaw operation under a one-time regularization scheme, but mandates adherence to procedural fairness and reasoned orders. The ruling reinforces that even discretionary relief schemes must comply with natural justice principles, affecting thousands of similarly placed permit holders.

The Bombay High Court has held that the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act lacks the statutory power to direct criminal prosecution, reinforcing that its role is confined to ordering information disclosure and imposing penalties under Section 20. This ruling protects public authorities from overreach by appellate bodies and clarifies the boundaries between administrative accountability and criminal liability under the Act.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that public authorities cannot be penalized with monetary costs under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act solely for procedural delays; the imposition of costs demands clear evidence of intentional obstruction or mala fide conduct. This sets a critical precedent for accountability, ensuring that public bodies are not unduly punished for administrative bottlenecks absent bad faith.

The Bombay High Court holds that receipt of state grants alone does not transform a private trust into a public authority under the RTI Act, reinforcing that only entities under substantial state control or financing are subject to disclosure obligations. This clarifies the legal boundary for thousands of trusts and NGOs receiving government funds, ensuring RTI applies only where public accountability is truly embedded.

Bombay HC rules that unexplained discrepancies in official land grant orders trigger personal accountability of the issuing authority, mandating a sworn affidavit and potential pensionary action under the Supreme Court's K.K. Dhawan precedent. The court directed the concerned official to justify the variance in land area measurements or face disciplinary consequences, reinforcing judicial scrutiny over administrative arbitrariness.

Bombay High Court grants interim relief to landowners against eviction notices based on inaccurate acquisition claims, reinforcing need for procedural accuracy under land laws.

Kerala High Court strikes down Rule 4(4) proviso limiting free RTI information to 20 pages for BPL persons, holding it ultra vires Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.