New State CIC Rahul Pande to focus on RTI awareness
Nagpur: Senior journalist from Nagpur and Maharashtra's newly appointed Chief Information Commissioner (CIC),
Rahul Pande
, has said that his focus will be on creating greater awareness about the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Governor C P Radhakrishnan administered the oath of office to Pande at a ceremony held at Raj Bhavan in Mumbai earlier this week, along with newly appointed state information commissioners Ravindra Thakare, Prakash Indalkar, and Gajanan Nimdev. Thakare and Nimdev also hail from Nagpur.
In an exclusive conversation with TOI, Pande emphasised that the RTI Act is a powerful tool for empowering citizens, but its awareness remains largely confined to activists and politicians. "Common people must realise the importance of RTI. Journalists, too, need focused training to use it effectively in their reporting," he said.
To bridge this gap, the Information Commission will soon launch extensive public awareness programmes and special training sessions for journalists across Maharashtra. "We want RTI to become a mass movement, not remain restricted to a few," Pande added.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Get Intel Laptops With Exclusive Student Perks
Intel Laptops | Search Ads
Learn More
Undo
He also noted that with no vacancies left in the Commission, the pendency of RTI cases is expected to drop significantly, reaffirming the Commission's commitment to faster grievance redressal.
A key area of focus under Pande's leadership will be sensitising the younger generation about their rights under the RTI Act. The Commission plans to collaborate with NCC and NSS units to spread awareness. Government offices and schools will also be actively engaged as part of this outreach initiative.
Maharashtra had been without a CIC since April 2023. Pande's appointment is for a three-year term. Earlier, he served as the information commissioner for the Nagpur division from October 2021 to 2024. During his tenure, he also held additional charge of the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Amravati divisions, gaining extensive administrative experience within the Commission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Germany tightens migration rules: 3-year citizenship ends, family visas frozen for some
Germany has introduced stricter rules on naturalisation and family reunification for certain categories of migrants. The changes, approved by Chancellor Friedrich Merz 's government on May 28, aim to reduce irregular migration and ease pressure on integration systems. Citizenship pathway extended Under the new policy, the option for "well-integrated" migrants to apply for German citizenship after just three years of residence has been discontinued. All applicants will now be required to complete at least five years of legal residency, meet German language proficiency at the B1 level, and demonstrate financial self-sufficiency. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: 1 simple trick to get all TV channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo The earlier fast-track provision allowed those with C1-level language skills and a record of community contribution to naturalise in three years. Officials now say the change is intended to create a more uniform path to citizenship. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Family reunification suspended Live Events You Might Also Like: Germany prepares to abolish its fast-track path to Citizenship Another key measure is the temporary suspension of family reunification rights for individuals holding subsidiary protection status. For the next two years, these migrants will not be permitted to bring immediate family members—such as spouses and children—to join them in Germany. This freeze affects an estimated 380,000 people and comes amid a backdrop of rising migration. Until now, Germany has issued around 12,000 family reunification visas annually under this category. Government's justification of these reforms Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt stated that the changes are necessary to manage the country's migration and integration capacity. 'We need to reduce the pull factors that make Germany a top destination for irregular migration,' he said. You Might Also Like: Germany's immigration policies set for overhaul as Conservatives take power The government argues that the volume of new arrivals and pending family reunification applications has placed a strain on housing, education, and social services. Political context of the reforms introduced Several civil society groups and migration experts have criticised the policy, warning that it could lead to prolonged family separation and slow the integration process for migrants already living in Germany. However, supporters of the move believe it reflects growing public concern over migration levels and ensures that naturalisation is based on deeper integration and contribution to German society. The reforms come at a time of increasing pressure from conservative and far-right parties. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has campaigned on limiting immigration, continues to gain traction in regional polls. Chancellor Merz has described the policy shift as a 'balanced response' to national priorities, stating that the goal is to maintain social cohesion and manage migration flows responsibly. The government is expected to fast-track the new rules through the Bundestag. Since the legislation does not require Bundesrat approval, it is likely to be enacted before the summer recess. Migrants currently applying for citizenship or family reunification are advised to review the new requirements and consult official sources or legal advisors.
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nearly half of Haryana's information officers fail to pay RTI penalties: Data
Over the past 18 years, 48.6% of information officers in Haryana have failed to deposit fines imposed on them by the Haryana State Information Commission. This data, procured under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, reveals that these penalties were levied on officers for failing to provide complete information within the stipulated time. Responding to a query by Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch convener Subhash, the commission disclosed that 4,043 information officials had been fined in this period. The total penalty imposed on them amounts to Rs. 5.9 crore, of which Rs. 2.84 crore has been recovered. However, 1,965 officials are yet to pay their fines, leaving over Rs. 3 crore unpaid. RTI activist Subhash, who founded the Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch in 2007, has emphasised the need for strict action against officials who withhold information and later fail to deposit fines. Another activist, P P Kapoor, previously approached the Lokayukta demanding action against defaulting officers. He also urged the anti-corruption ombudsman to direct the government to recover fines with interest. Kapoor told The Indian Express that hearings on the matter were nearing completion, and he expected a ruling soon. He has suggested that retirement benefits should be withheld from officers who fail to clear penalties before superannuation. Former State Information Commissioner Hemant Atri has consistently pushed for a mechanism to ensure compliance with commission orders. He advocates for strict action against State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) who ignore hearings and fail to implement directives. Atri explained that, during his tenure, he held First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) accountable for enforcing his orders. He emphasised that drawing and disbursing officers (DDOs) and FAAs should be responsible for ensuring penalty payments, warning that failure to comply could result in action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. A senior Haryana government official told The Indian Express that the administration would soon issue instructions directing SPIOs to deposit their fines with the state exchequer. Sukhbir Siwach's extensive and in-depth coverage of farmer agitation against three farm laws during 2020-21 drew widespread attention. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Only civil courts can try land ownership or title disputes: Odisha HC
CUTTACK : In a significant ruling, the Orissa high court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputes involving ownership or title to land, emphasising that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The vacation bench of Justice S K Panigrahi issued the order on May 30, setting aside an eviction order passed by the tehsildar of Dhamnagar under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972. The case pertains to Dinabandhu Behera, who challenged the eviction proceedings initiated against him on the grounds that the state had erroneously recorded the disputed land in its name during the hal settlement. Behera claimed that his father had legally come into possession of the property after an 'ekpadia' (a written recognition) was issued by the ex-intermediary post-estate abolition. His father's name was subsequently recorded in the tenant ledger and rent was regularly paid to the govt. Upon his death, Behera came into possession of the land. But, despite these records, the tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings treating Behera as an encroacher. The sub-collector and collector of Bhadrak later upheld the eviction order. The HC, while setting aside all these orders, stated that the existence of a bona fide dispute over ownership and title renders summary eviction proceedings under the OPLE Act is inappropriate. "The revenue authorities, who conduct summary procedures, are not competent to adjudicate such complex disputes of title," Justice Panigrahi observed. The court further noted that Behera had already approached the civil judge, junior division, Dhamnagar, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land. He had also prayed for a declaration that the encroachment proceedings were unsustainable, given the pending civil suit. Reaffirming the supremacy of civil courts in deciding title-related matters, the court ruled that "summary proceedings by revenue authorities cannot constitute the proper forum for adjudication where a bona fide dispute exists over title".
