Right to Information Wiki Blog
Latest RTI decision notes
- Right to Be Forgotten: erase old court cases from Google after Delhi HC's 2026 ruling - what the Laksh Vir Singh Yadav judgment (2026:DHC:4891) means, the three remedies (de-indexing, delinking, masking), who is eligible vs barred, and how to apply.
- Gold Rate Today in India: 24K, 22K, 18K Price and Buyer Checklist — SEO-focused gold price guide with current-rate snapshot, city buying checklist, jewellery bill calculation, hallmark checks and a light RTI route for complaint records.
- PAN Aadhaar name mismatch? Fix KYC rejections without running office to office — high-search digital identity repair map covering PAN-Aadhaar, DigiLocker, mutual fund KYC, passport holds, bank onboarding and when RTI can actually help.
- Monday Morning RTI Checklist: Fix Pending Government Work This Week — Monday action plan for pending passport, pension, ration card, FIR, PMAY, electricity, scholarship, mutation and public-service files.
- PMAY status stuck or subsidy delayed? Use RTI after this checklist — high-interest PMAY 2026 guide covering stuck beneficiary status, missing names, delayed instalments, subsidy confusion, grievance steps and record-based RTI drafting.
- BCCI outside RTI: CIC decision in Geeta Rani case explained — legal analysis of CIC/MOYAS/A/2018/123236 after the Madras High Court remand, including Section 2(h), government control, substantial financing, tax concessions and practical RTI routes.
Sending whatsapp Notice is valid in Court
Practice this in 30 seconds. Use our free RTI Assistant — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
Legal notices sent on phone messaging application WhatsApp will be treated as valid evidence in court. Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026.
Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026
Legal notices sent on phone messaging application WhatsApp will be treated as valid evidence in court. A legal notice received by an individual on their WhatsApp account will be treated same as receiving a physical copy of the notice.
Justice Gautam Patel, who was hearing the case, said
According to the law, a legal notice can be served to an individual or firm via registered post or by visiting in person. However, this has changed in recent times after the enactment of the I-T Act, which recognises electronic communication such as e-mails and text messages as legal evidence.
RTI Replies on Website — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026
Practice this in 30 seconds. Use our free RTI Assistant — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities.
Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026
All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words. RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to the personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, as they do not serve any public interest.1)
Attention is invited to DOPT's guidelines on suo motu disclosure issued vide O.M. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.4.2013 whereby Public Authorities have an obligation to proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received by them and their responses on their websites. In order to facilitate uploading of RTI applications/appeals received and their responses on the website, a new feature has been added to the CPIO/FAA's module on the “RTI online” portal on pilot basis for DOPT. This feature provides an option to the CPIO and FAA to upload the reply to RTI application and first appeal respectively on the website of the Department.2)
The details of Suo Moto Disclosure can be read from our wiki article.
~~LINKBACK~~
CIC does not allow disclosure of the dissent note of Ashok Lavasa
Practice this in 30 seconds. Use our free RTI Assistant — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Dated: 24.03.2020
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copy of the dissent expressed by Mr Ashok Lavasa (Election Commissioner) over the clean chits given to four speeches of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and one speech of Mr. Amit Shah in lieu of the complaints received by the ECI during the Lok Sabha Election campaign in 2019.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.07.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.09.2019 stated that handling MCC violations involved obtaining reports and input from field level officers. Notings prior to taking decision would contain references to reports and comments from field level officers. In similar cases, regarding reports submitted to the Commission by observers on conduct of election, the Commission vide order no CIC/WB/A/000212 dated 15.04.2010 upheld the view that such information would be protected from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
The Commission referred to the following:
In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held as under:
“28………the information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer-books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act.”
Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026
~~LINKBACK~~
Reader signal
Was this article useful?
Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.