Skip to main content

Modi's Gujarat "competed" with Karnataka in rejecting RTI pleas in 2013-14

 
A just-released report, “State of Information Commissions and the Use of RTI Laws in India: Rapid Study Based on the Annual Reports of Information Commissions”, prepared by a team of researchers headed by Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) has said that Gujarat has one of the highest proportion of rejection of right to information (RTI) applications, close to a fifth (19.5 per cent), for reasons not pertaining to the RTI Act.
While the Central Government tops the with the highest proportion of rejections of RTI applications (35.62 per cent) “for reasons other than Sections 8, 9, 11 and 24 of the RTI Act”, Karnataka tops among states with the public authorities rejecting “more than a 30 per cent of the RTI applications for reasons not specified in the Act”, the report states.
Coming to specific sections under which RTI applications were rejected, the inter-state comparison suggests that “Section 8(1)(j), relating to the personal privacy of individuals was the most frequently invoked of exemptions by public authorities under the Central government and the Karnataka government.” Thus, invoking this section, more than a third of the RTI applications in Karnataka (33.15 per cent), followed by Central government (23 per cent) and Gujarat “a little more than 10 per cent”
At the same time, the report says, two sections – Section 9, which protects private copyright, and Section 11 which protects confidential information about third parties – were invoked rejecting more than 20 per cent of RTI applications in Gujarat.
Then, the report says, “In Gujarat, 6.2 per cent of the RTI applications were rejected for reasons specified in Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which pertains to national security and specified national interests of the state, including foreign relations.” This is followed by Karnataka, 4.8 per cent. As for the Central government, only 0.05% of the rejections were on this count.
The report further says, “In Gujarat 23.5 per cent of the RTI applications were rejected under Section 24, as they pertained to security and intelligence organizations exempted by the government from the ordinary obligations of transparency like other public authorities”. In comparison, this section was invoked only in 6.52 per cent of the cases by the Central government.
Giving other details, the report states, as was the case last year, the maximum number of vacancies in the state information commission was in Jharkhand (4), with Gujarat and Tamil Nadu closely followed with 3 vacancies each. It notes, “The appointment of the woman IC in Gujarat was quashed by the High Court for not having any of the specializations specified in Section 15(5) of the Central RTI Act.”
Regretting that “only retired career bureaucrats are serving on the state Information Commissions of Chhattisgarh and Gujarat”, the report says, both “the Central and State governments are not adhering to the directions of the Supreme Court to widen their pool to include candidates with other specializations.”
As is natural, the Central government topped the number of RTI applications in 2013-14 with 8.34 lakh, with Maharashtra coming second with 7.03 lakh applications in 2014, Karnataka 4.25 lakh applications, and Gujarat at 4th place with 1.72 lakh applications. Pointing out that there has been a drastic increase in awareness about RTI in Gujarat, the report says, “Gujarat has reported a 41 per cent increase in the number of RTI applicants in 2013-14”, followed by “Karnataka 31 per cent”.
Coming the departments which received most number of RTI applications, the report says, the rural development topped the list in Chhattisgarh (14.85 per cent) and Himachal Pradesh (10.86 per cent), while the urban development topped the list in Gujarat (24.91 per cent) and Maharashtra (30.58 per cent).
As for the home department, including the police and prisons, it topped the list in Rajasthan (28.68 per cent), with Gujarat closely following (17.26%).

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.