Table of Contents
Blog
If your last RTI was rejected. See Why RTI Applications Get Rejected in India — and How to Avoid It. Five reasons, the exact fix for each, and two case studies of rejected RTIs corrected on appeal.
Editorial notes on legislative changes, major judgments, Commission orders, and practitioner issues under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Posts are published as matters are notified and are reviewed periodically.
New to RTI? Start with the three most-used guides on this site:
Scope
The blog covers the following categories.
- Legislative changes. Amendments to the Act, rules notified under it, and allied legislation that touches the right to information.
- Judgments. Decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Information Commissions that refine the working of the Act.
- Commission orders. Orders of administrative significance from the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions.
- Practitioner notes. Notes on drafting, appeals, penalties, third-party procedure, and recurring grounds of rejection.
- Status of the Commissions. Composition, pendency, and functioning of the Central and State Information Commissions.
Recent posts
RTI This Week — News Roundup, 14 to 21 April 2026
About this roundup. Every week, this page collects the most important news, court rulings, Information Commission decisions, and editorial commentary on the Right to Information Act, 2005. Each item carries a source link, a one-paragraph plain-English explanation, a brief legal interpretation, and pointers to the relevant articles on this wiki where you can go deeper.
Disclaimer. Items are drawn from publicly reported sources. Quotations and figures cited are paraphrased; readers are encouraged to consult the original article for the precise wording. This page is not legal advice. For decision-specific guidance, consult an advocate or refer to our Disclaimer.
This week's headline. A combination of three Central Information Commission orders and a Supreme Court intervention has put the RTI machinery back in the news — even as commentary mounts on the post-DPDP-2025 narrowing of Section 8(1)(j) and the persistent backlog crisis at State Information Commissions.
10 Most Unique RTI Applications in India That Will Change How You Think About Transparency
Disclaimer (please read).
- The stories below are based on publicly reported RTI cases in mainstream Indian media.
- The selection of “unique” or “interesting” is a subjective editorial choice for education and awareness.
- The purpose is to inform and inspire, not to mock individuals, institutions, or political actors.
- Readers are encouraged to visit the source links for full context.
Top 20 Government Ministries That Receive Maximum RTI Applications in India (With Subject Analysis)
In one line. Every year, close to 14 lakh RTI applications are filed with Central Government public authorities. The distribution is uneven — five ministries alone handle nearly half. This data-backed article maps the top 20, the subjects citizens ask most about, and how to file your next RTI to the right office.
Data sources used.
- Central Information Commission (CIC) Annual Reports, 2021-22 through 2024-25.
- Analysis by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), the longest-running independent RTI-data watchdog in India.
- Mainstream media reports quoting CIC data.
- Readers are encouraged to consult
cic.gov.in/reports/annual-reportsfor primary figures.
Did you know? The CIC's 2021-22 Annual Report shows 14.21 lakh RTI applications filed with Central public authorities that year — a 6.55% increase over the previous year. The top five ministries (Finance, Railways, Corporate Affairs, Communications, Education) together handled 46.26% of the total volume.
Privacy and RTI: Filing Smart in the DPDP Era (2026 Guide)
Did you know? A well-drafted “aggregate” RTI wins almost every time, even after the 14 November 2025 amendment. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 did not touch Section 8(2), the public-interest override. That clause is still your lifeline.
In one line. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 14 November 2025, substituted the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. A steep share of Q1 2026 RTIs have been refused on the strength of that substitution. This guide shows how to draft an application the Public Information Officer cannot refuse by reflex.
What that means in practice.
- Names trigger rejections. Naming an officer or a citizen in the question is the fastest route to a Section 8(1)(j) refusal.
- Aggregates and functions win. Ask about the department's spending, the scheme's cost, the tender's award criteria, not about who drew what.
- Section 8(2) is intact. The public-interest override survives the amendment and must be read into every refusal.
Updated: 20 April 2026. Rejection rates reported above 40 per cent in the first quarter of 2026.
Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI Re-Examination: Proposals, Backlog Crisis, and 2026 Implications
Did you know? Every year, Indians file well over ten lakh (one million) RTI applications. A share of these reach the Central and State Information Commissions as second appeals \u2014 and the pendency there has become the working bottleneck of the Act.
DPDP Act vs RTI Conflicts: The 2026 Legal Landscape
Did you know? On 14 November 2025, a single notification rewired the Right to Information Act's most-invoked exemption. The proviso that said “information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen” was removed. Five months on, the practical effect is measurable.
Delhi High Court PhD Theses Ruling: A Landmark RTI Decision on Academic Transparency vs Privacy (2024)
Did you know? The Delhi High Court's 2024 direction brought PhD theses at publicly-funded universities squarely within the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment reaffirms that research produced on the public rupee belongs, in principle, in the public domain — with narrow privacy carve-outs under Section 8(1)(j).
A practitioner-ready analysis of the Delhi High Court's December 2024 direction on disclosure of PhD theses under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Written for researchers, advocates, journalists, Public Information Officers at universities, and students who want to understand the legal basis for accessing publicly-funded academic research. Current with the 14 November 2025 DPDP Rules amendment.
What Indians file RTI applications about — the subjects filed, satisfied, and appealed
An evaluatory note on the subject-matter pattern of Right to Information applications in India. Drawn from the annual reports of the Department of Personnel and Training, the published reports of the Satark Nagrik Sangathan, and the case-law line at the Central Information Commission and the Supreme Court. The note is for applicants, Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, and researchers who want to see where the Act works, where it stops, and why.
In one line. Indians file the largest share of their RTI applications on service matters, land records, pensions and retirement benefits, police and FIR matters, and education. The Public Information Officer typically gives a satisfactory reply on applications for the applicant's own record (service book, pension file, income tax refund, marksheet verification, FIR copy, sanction order for a specific licence). Applications that most often end up in appeal before the Commission turn on Section 8(1)(j) personal information, Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary, Section 8(1)(h) pending investigation, file notings, “no such record” refusals, and on records of political, regulatory, and judicial bodies. The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) will change the shape of the appeal volume in the next two years.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025
An evaluatory account of how the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been altered between 2015 and 2025 by Parliament, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Information Commissions, and by the wider public data-protection regime. The note is for practitioners, Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, Commissioners, journalists, and citizens who want a single place to follow the arc of change and its implications for day-to-day working of the Act.
In one line. Between 2015 and 2025, the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been changed by two statutes (the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the DPDP Act, 2023 in force from 14 November 2025), by one Constitution Bench judgment that redrew the line on personal information and fiduciary claims (CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020), by the Supreme Court direction on filling Commission vacancies (Anjali Bhardwaj, 2019), by a line of High Court rulings on the reach of the Act into academic and regulatory records, and by the Electoral Bonds judgment (ADR v. Union of India, 2024) that re-anchored the constitutional basis of the right to know. The composition and pendency of the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions, and their interaction with the new personal-information regime, will shape the next decade of practice.
Section 8(1)(j) Reply: 5-Question PIO Test
A practitioner note on how a Public Information Officer is to decide an application that engages personal information after the notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. Covers the substantive test, the entries to be recorded on the file, and the drafting of the reply. The note is for Central Government use. State-level practitioners should read the note with the rules in force in the relevant State. The note is to be read with the template at PIO reply with severability and with the earlier practitioner note at DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Full archive
For the complete list of posts, see the blog archive.
Related
- Templates. Ready-to-use drafts for applicants, Public Information Officers, and First Appellate Authorities.
- Case law library. Landmark decisions indexed by section.
- Live tracker. Current composition of the Central Information Commission, pendency figures, and recent notifications.
Last reviewed on
19 April 2026
Discussion