RTI This Week — News Roundup, 14 to 21 April 2026

• What. Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi held that an advocate cannot file an RTI on behalf of a client regarding the very case the advocate is handling. The Commission observed that the RTI Act's purpose is citizen-state transparency, not adversarial discovery between litigating parties.
• Source. The Tribune — Advocates cannot seek information under RTI Act for clients' cases: CIC: tribuneindia.com/news/india/advocates-cannot-seek-information-under-rti-act-for-clients-cases-cic.
• Legal interpretation. The ruling reads Section 6(2) of the RTI Act narrowly — while the section bars asking the applicant why they want information, the Commission carves a separate ground when the request is functionally a litigation-discovery exercise. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, (2010) 2 SCC 1 that RTI is not a parallel discovery tool.
• What it means for citizens. A litigant should obtain documents from the public authority directly as a citizen, not through the advocate, and should avoid framing the RTI as a case-related request. The right itself is not impaired; the channel is.
• Where to read more on this site: PIO RTI reply guide · Section 8(1)(j) framework · 10 landmark CIC decisions.

• What. The CIC sharply criticised PIOs who deny information by only citing a Section 8 sub-clause without reasoning. The Commission re-affirmed that under Section 3 of the Act, disclosure is the rule and exemption is the exception, and that exemptions must be “narrowly construed” so as not to “shadow the very right itself”.
• Source. The Tribune — Exemptions in RTI Act should not shadow the right itself: CIC on denials without adequate reasons: tribuneindia.com/news/india/exemptions-in-rti-act-should-not-shadow-the-right-itself-cic-on-denials-without-adequate-reasons.
• Legal interpretation. The order reinforces the line traced from Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) through CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016): every Section 8 invocation must be a reasoned, sub-clause-specific application, with explicit Section 8(2) public-interest balancing and Section 10 severability analysis.
• What it means for citizens and PIOs. A “rejected under Section 8” reply without analysis is now even more vulnerable at First Appeal. PIOs should map each question to a sub-clause, record the public-interest balancing on the file, and consider severability before refusing.
• Where to read more on this site: Section 8(1)(j) framework · Section 10 severability · Why RTI gets rejected.

• What. Disposing of an appeal on roadside parking fees, the CIC commended the applicant for his “public-spirited” efforts and noted his actions reflected a “deep commitment to justice and fairness”. The Commission used the order to articulate the civic value of small-scale, locally-focused RTIs.
• Source. The Tribune — CIC lauds 'public-spirited' RTI in Puducherry parking fee case: tribuneindia.com/news/india/cic-lauds-public-spirited-rti-in-puducherry-parking-fee-case.
• Legal interpretation. Public expenditure / fee collection by local bodies falls squarely within the proactive-disclosure obligation of Section 4(1)(b)(xi). RTI applications that seek transparency on small but recurring civic charges (parking, garbage, water tariff) are exactly what the Act envisages.
• What it means for citizens. Small RTIs matter. A polite, specific question about a local fee is the textbook RTI that the law was written for.
• Where to read more on this site: Track public spending · Improve local infrastructure · Pillar — RTI for Community & Society.

• What. In Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reviewed the staffing crisis at Information Commissions. As of February 2026, all 11 Central Information Commission posts were filled, but the CIC carried a backlog of more than 32,000 cases. Across India, over 4 lakh appeals are pending at the 29 commissions; two SICs continue to be defunct. The Court granted most states up to two months to complete pending appointments and warned that non-compliance would invite further scrutiny.
• Sources.
  • Moneylife — “RTI Defeated When Commissions Turn Defunct”: Supreme Court Reviews Vacancies, Transparency in CIC Appointments: moneylife.in/article/rti-defeated-when-commissions-turn-defunct-supreme-court-reviews-vacancies-transparency-in-cic-appointments/79642.html.
  • Supreme Court Observer — Vacancies in Information Commissions — Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India: scobserver.in/cases/vacancies-in-information-commissions-anjali-bharadwaj-v-union-of-india.
  • The Probe — CIC Vacancy Crisis Paralyses India's RTI System: theprobe.in/public-interest/cic-vacancy-crisis-paralyses-indias-rti-system-10501177.
• Legal interpretation. The Court is exercising its continuing-mandamus jurisdiction to enforce Section 12 (CIC composition) and Section 15 (SIC composition) timelines. The 2019 amendment had delegated tenure / status determination to the Centre and States — making timely appointment a matter of executive will, which the Court is now constraining through judicial review.
• What it means for citizens. If your Second Appeal is pending at an SIC with a long backlog, write a polite “expedite request” citing this Supreme Court direction. Lawyers/activists are already invoking it in pleadings.
• Where to read more on this site: RTI in India 2026: state-wise analysis · 10 landmark CIC decisions · Second Appeal at CIC.

• What. In a March 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that public officials retain privacy rights and personal data cannot be disclosed under RTI without satisfying the legality, necessity and proportionality tests. By holding that public interest alone cannot justify disclosure of personal data, the Court has strengthened safeguards against misuse of information requests while preserving the spirit of democratic accountability.
• Source. Legal Service India — Right to Privacy vs Public Interest: Supreme Court Reaffirms Protection of Personal Data: legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/supreme-court-privacy-vs-rti-personal-data-disclosure-ruling/.
• Legal interpretation. Reads K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI (2017) into Section 8(1)(j) more strictly. The Court applies the three-step proportionality test (legality + necessity + balancing) before disclosure of personal data. PIOs invoking 8(1)(j) gain a stronger case-law anchor; applicants pleading public interest must show why the proportionality test favours disclosure.
• What it means for citizens. When you frame an RTI that touches third-party personal data, plead the specific public-interest dimension — not a generic transparency claim. The PIO will balance against the proportionality test.
• Where to read more on this site: Section 8(1)(j) framework · Puttaswamy — privacy as fundamental right · DPDP Rules 2025 amendment.

• What. Continuing analyses warn that the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — operationalised through the DPDP Rules, 2025 (notified 14 November 2025) — has broadened Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by removing the public-interest carve-out within the clause itself. The override now operates only through Section 8(2). Commentators argue this lowers the threshold for “personal information” denials.
• Sources.
  • RSF — India: New data protection law threatens freedom of information: rsf.org/en/india-new-data-protection-law-threatens-freedom-information.
  • Lexology — Privacy at the Price of Transparency: Legal Implications of the Amendments to Section 8 of the RTI Act: lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e8f8e6e4-bb8b-4a8a-b1e5-d34dcd19799a.
  • Countercurrents — RTI Under Threat as Data Protection Law Removes Key Public Interest Safeguard: countercurrents.org/2026/03/rti-under-threat-as-data-protection-law-removes-key-public-interest-safeguard/.
• Legal interpretation. The amendment text deletes the “which would have been disclosed to Parliament” phrase and re-frames “personal information” with an explicit privacy lens. The Section 8(2) override remains; courts and Commissions are still developing the post-amendment doctrine.
• What it means for citizens. Frame personal-information-adjacent RTIs around Section 8(2) public interest rather than the older 8(1)(j) carve-out. PIOs are also recalibrating; appeal patterns will mature over the next 6–12 months.
• Where to read more on this site: DPDP Rules 2025 — full amendment note · PIO reply guide post-DPDP · Section 8(1)(j) PIO framework.

• What. Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj filed an RTI seeking the independent appraisal on the basis of which the Election Commission of India initiated the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The ECI replied by sharing only the 24 June 2025 order announcing the SIR and stating it was “self-explanatory”. Bhardwaj has flagged the response as inadequate. The SIR has reportedly led to deletion of ~91 lakh voters in West Bengal since October 2025 and ~2.04 crore in UP during the same period.
• Source. The Federal — Is EC lying on SIR? Activist Anjali Bhardwaj interview: thefederal.com/category/news/election-commission-sir-rti-anjali-bhardwaj-203993.
• Legal interpretation. The ECI's “self-explanatory” reply is a textbook example of the kind of denial-by-redirection that the CIC's “exemptions should not shadow the right” order (above) targets. A First Appeal is the natural next step; a writ may follow.
• What it means for citizens. Voter-roll integrity is a public-interest matter par excellence. RTIs on the SIR process — by AC, by district, with disposal data — are valid and likely to gain support from the CIC if framed precisely.
• Where to read more on this site: Voter ID delay — RTI to ERO · 10 landmark CIC decisions · 10 unique RTI applications — Electoral Bonds story.

• What. In a widely circulated April 2026 commentary, former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur has warned that if current trends continue, India's RTI framework could be functionally dismantled within five to six years — not through formal repeal, but through legislative dilution (DPDP), institutional weakening (defunct commissions, vacancy crisis), administrative resistance (cryptic refusals), and a growing culture of secrecy.
• Sources.
  • Countercurrents — Is India Burying the Right to Information? The Slow Death of Transparency: countercurrents.org/2026/04/is-india-burying-the-right-to-information-the-slow-death-of-transparency/.
  • Clarion India — same essay republished: clarionindia.net/is-india-burying-the-right-to-information-the-slow-death-of-transparency/.
  • The Week (April 2025 retrospective for context) — RTI system crumbles: 7 info commissions defunct, over 4 lakh appeals pending: theweek.in/news/india/2025/04/19/rti-system-crumbles-7-info-commissions-defunct-over-4-lakh-appeals-pending.html.
• Legal interpretation. This is editorial commentary, not law. But it captures the convergence of three pressures the Supreme Court itself acknowledged in Anjali Bhardwaj (above) — vacancies, backlog, and the post-DPDP Section 8(1)(j) shift.
• What it means for citizens and practitioners. The right is intact in statute; the practical exercise is harder than it was in 2010–2015. Quality of drafting, persistence in appeal, and choice of authority matter more than ever.
• Where to read more on this site: RTI 2026 state-wise data · Pillar — RTI Mastery · Responsible use of RTI.

• From Right to Information to “Right to Ignorance” — Free Press Journal editorial connecting DPDP, vacancy, and refusal trends. freepressjournal.in/analysis/from-right-to-information-rti-to-right-to-ignorance-the-fading-spirit-of-accountability.
• Internet Freedom Foundation — Supreme Court stays a “Right to Be Forgotten” order that had directed removal of news / judicial records. The reasoning intersects RTI for the historical-record question. internetfreedom.in/supreme-court-stays-order-invoking-the-right-to-be-forgotten-for-removal-of-news-reports-judicial-records-from-the-public-domain.
• CIC press release schedule — Supreme Court of India's press release page for 9 April 2026: sci.gov.in/press-release-dated-09-04-2026.

The week's developments cluster around three threads. First, the CIC pushed back against under-reasoned denials and clarified one boundary (advocates-for-clients) while celebrating one good use (Puducherry civic). Second, the Supreme Court continued to use Anjali Bhardwaj as a vehicle to enforce Information Commission staffing and backlog reduction. Third, the post-DPDP narrowing of Section 8(1)(j) is now a settled feature of the practice, with citizens and commentators urging applicants to plead Section 8(2) public interest more carefully. None of these alters the statute; all of them sharpen how it is used.

• Items in this roundup are abstracted from publicly reported sources at the date of writing. Quoted figures and judicial language are paraphrased; readers should consult the original article for precise text.
• This page is for information and education only and is not legal advice. For decision-specific guidance, see our Disclaimer and consult an advocate.
• Where a court / Commission order is cited, it should be cross-verified against the primary source (judgment, order PDF on cic.gov.in or sci.gov.in) before formal use.

• RTI for beginners
• File RTI online — 12-step guide
• PIO RTI reply guide
• FAA speaking-order guide
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• RTI 2026 — state-wise data
• DPDP Rules 2025 — amendment note
• Pillar — RTI Mastery

Last updated: 21 April 2026. The next roundup is published every Monday. To suggest a story or correction, email [email protected].