Whispers Forum

CAPF officers of 1993 batch are still serving as DIG, which is 4 ranks below DG. Such disparity !
AK
Don't regret Annamalai
Just don't regret Annamalai, we are with you, always, Good decision indeed, bjp loser, if it doesnt make sense from where you are standing, move away, we love you, wish you happiness always Annamalai is a God in disguise, realise that people of TN and BJP I’ ll stop casting my vote for BJP henceforth
Priy
Mamata Banerjee
Her party is disintegrating superfast - thanks to her and her nephew/son . BJP needs to do nothing
Atul
Overhaul in Congress
"Overhaul" in Congress terminology means replacing one set of sycophants with another, and expecting them to deliver every time using the same assumptions and methodology!
Abhijit

The appellant sought certified copies of registration documents pertaining to Dev Prabhat Samachar Hindi newspaper. His application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to Office of Press Registrar General of India. The respondent claimed that information was denied U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 04.07.2024. The CIC enquired about the mode by which the reply dated 04.07.2024 was sent to the complainant. The respondent submitted that the reply was uploaded on website but could not corroborate their submission. The respondent could not confirm whether they had sent the letter dated 04.07.2024 to the complainant by post within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the then PIO Mr. Suresh Kumar, as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him for not providing reply to the complainant within stipulated time limit.
Comments
Every PIO must reply to the RTI Application as per the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act, and keep the proof of reply.
Citation: Shravan Mishra v. Office of the Press Registrar General of India, File No: CIC/MOIAB/C/2024/127395; Date of Interim Decision: 23-01-2026

The controversies surrounding CBSE On screen marking have understandably caused concern among students and parents and dented the image of the government at a time when present PM takes personal interest in students welfare by directly interacting with student community on various platforms. However, fixing responsibility and restoring public trust in CBSE is more important than demanding the resignation of the Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, for matters not under his direct control.It would be unfortunate if an effective minister is made to take the responsibility for operational lapses and carelessness of officials within an autonomous examination body like CBSE.Education Minister is not involved in day-to-day functioning, confidential examination processes, or operational decisions. Further ,In today’s governance environment, with close monitoring and transparent appointments by PMO , the scope for ministerial interference in routine functioning is extremely limited.
The more relevant question is whether the officials directly responsible for examination management and CBSE like chairman, controller of examination, secretary and CVO followed established systems and safeguards.Reports suggest that OSM had faced serious difficulties earlier when implemented by UPA government in 2014 but No minister resigned then but OSM was discontinued after public criticism with same problems. If so, was adequate pilot testing conducted by CBSE before rolling it out again at a national scale for Class 12 examinations? Were past experiences and technological risks properly evaluated by above officials of CBSE and the ministry briefed before being implemented?
Technology and reform are necessary, but they must be introduced cautiously, especially in high-stakes examinations affecting millions of students and political risk involved.The lapses in CBSE appear to be carelessness,operational and human failures. Immediate Disciplinary action against top officials or their transfers would send a far more constructive message than politically targeting the minister.
Students deserve both reform and reliability. The focus now should be on restoring trust in CBSE examination systems through accountability, institutional strengthening, and careful implementation of change.
— A Visitor

Anganwadi workers can become elected public representatives in India under certain conditions. An Anganwadi worker is not considered to hold an "office of profit" under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, hence she can contest the election for MLA or Member of Legislative Council (MLC).[1] The Supreme Court of India has also clarified in various judgments that Anganwadi workers are not government employees and do not hold offices of profit, making them eligible to contest elections [1, 2, 3]. However, it is important to note that if elected, they will have to follow the Model Code of Conduct and relevant government rules.
Aditya Kumar
Same 2012 batch CAPF ACs in CRPF are still assistant commandants with no promotion till date, while the same batch IPS officers have gotten 4 promotions to DIGP rank. Wow !
A Visitor

1. Election result
BJP won 207 of 294 seats, ending 15 years of TMC rule. Suvendu Adhikari became Chief Minister. Mamata Banerjee lost her own Bhabanipur seat to Suvendu, and even her home ward Kalighat flipped to BJP.
2. TMC’s internal trouble
After the rout, TMC faces reports of defections. Political circles in Delhi and Kolkata are discussing that 8 of TMC’s 10 Rajya Sabha MPs may join BJP, following a pattern seen with AAP earlier. Many TMC MLAs skipped party meetings, and there’s open questioning of Mamata’s leadership after the Bhabanipur loss. CPI(M) leaders say TMC is “melting down faster than ice” and aim to fill the opposition space.
3. Current clashes
- Mamata’s line :She’s aggressively targeting BJP and the Election Commission over the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls. She’s threatened to bring down the central BJP government if any genuine voter’s name is deleted, and accused BJP of trying to “loot Bengal’s land and erase its identity”.
- BJP’s response: BJP has filed complaints against Mamata for alleged MCC violations and blamed TMC workers for attacks on BJP workers. Suvendu Adhikari has said Mamata is “unfit to hold a constitutional post”.
4. Violence and accusations
Clashes broke out in Shibpur, Howrah right after results. BJP claimed victory came from “unity of Sanatanis,” while TMC accused BJP of using 5-star vehicles and rallies to dominate politics.
5. National angle
Post-election, Mamata has revived calls for opposition unity, saying parties should act like “free birds.” She didn’t rule out a merger with Congress, fueling further speculation.
In short: BJP is in power in Bengal for the first time, TMC is in damage-control mode, and the fight now centers on voter-list revisions, law and order, and political defections.
Aditi

PM is setting a bad example in leadership …. In a business or corporate or any system if a person is not performing repeatedly then he is removed. Here he has created more than enough damage to kids' futures!
Girishkj
Incorrect facts
The facts of the case demonstrate that incorrect facts were provided by IOCL, especially as the SDM's certificate was also on records. The CIC is the principal body entrusted with ensuring transparency and accountability. It should take upon itself the verification of the facts. The IOCL vigilance branch should have been directed to examine the facts instead of making the RTI applicant do the work.
Udham Singh

The appellant filed a complaint with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding an un-authorized building pointing out violation of Map Sanction, Fire N.O.C., safety norms, illegal use of basement for academic tuition center, International Restaurant, Banquet Hall and meeting hall etc. He filed an application under the RTI Act seeking action taken report. For most of the information, the PIO replied that the information does not pertain to Building Department. The First Appellate Authority held that the PIO, should have transferred the RTI application to the concerned department and directed to transfer the RTI application to whom the information is more closely related within 07 days from the receipt of this order. The CIC observed that the issue raised by the Appellant is not merely a private grievance but one of serious public concern. The Appellant appears to have attempted to draw the attention of the MCD towards rampant unauthorized construction, illegal commercial activities, unsafe use of basements, congestion, and violations of fire and safety norms and such applications are in the nature of public alerts. The CIC noted with concern that neither Section 6(3) nor Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been properly invoked within time frame by the Respondent. The replies furnished are evasive in nature. The PIO was duty-bound either to transfer the RTI application promptly under Section 6(3) at the initial stage or to seek assistance from the concerned officers under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and thereafter provide a consolidated and meaningful reply to the Appellant. Merely shifting responsibility by repeatedly stating “information does not pertain to this department” defeats the spirit and mandate of the RTI Act and cannot be countenanced by the Information Commission. The CIC directed the PIO to obtain the requisite information from the concerned departments/offices by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and to provide a revised, clear, and point-wise reply to the Appellant on all the queries raised in the RTI application, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC strongly advised the MCD to introspect, streamline inter-departmental coordination, and ensure that complaints and RTI applications highlighting potential public hazards are treated with the seriousness they deserve.
Comments
Illegal commercial activities and unsafe use of basements has led to loss of life in many accidents. As rightly pointed out by the CIC, such RTI applications are in the nature of public alerts and municipal corporations should introspect and streamline inter-departmental coordination failing which such incidents would recur.
Citation: Arvind Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/118670; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com