Heartfelt Thanks to Manipur CIC Koijam Radhashyam Singh for Defending the Poor's Right to Know

In several critical instances, the information most urgently needed by poor RTI applicants remains out of reach precisely because they cannot afford the additional fees and document charges. 

This creates a perverse incentive. Public officials exploit this financial vulnerability to shield sensitive or embarrassing details from disclosure. The reality is stark. RTI seekers must typically pay ₹10 as the initial application fee, plus ₹2 per A4/A3 page for photocopying or inspection charges (and actual costs for larger formats or samples). 

The Public Information Officer (PIO) calculates these extra costs, intimates the applicant, and often demands payment via demand draft or postal order before releasing any documents. Here, the poor RTI applicants failed to pay these fees and much needed information are beyond their reach. 

In this moment of historic vindication for transparency and social justice, we must express our deepest gratitude and admiration to the State Chief Information Commissioner, Koijam Radhashyam Singh, whose principled, clear-sighted, and citizen-centric leadership delivered the landmark judgment on 16 February 2026 in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2025 (Asem Roshan Singh vs The SPIO/BDO, Wangoi). 

His unwavering commitment to interpreting the law in a manner that upholds the spirit of the RTI Act, rather than allowing technicalities to undermine it has not only resolved a long-standing statutory contradiction between the RTI Act, 2005 and the National Food Security Act, 2013, but has also restored hope for countless economically vulnerable citizens across Manipur. 

By recognizing Priority Household (PHH) beneficiaries as the rightful statutory successors to the erstwhile Below Poverty Line (BPL) category for RTI fee-exemption purposes, Commissioner Koijam Radhashyam Singh has demonstrated exemplary judicial courage and empathy. 

His decision stands as a shining example of how independent institutions can protect democratic rights in the face of administrative inertia, and every RTI activist, poor household, and advocate of transparency owes him profound thanks for this enduring contribution to inclusive governance.

Under Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, citizens holding Below Poverty Line (BPL) status enjoy complete exemption from all such fees, including application, search, and copying charges—provided they submit valid proof. 

This provision was designed as a lifeline, ensuring that economic hardship does not bar the marginalized from exercising their right to transparency and accountability.

Yet, the enforcement of the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, discontinued the old BPL ration card system, replacing it with Priority Household (PHH) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) categories. 

With BPL cards no longer issued, PIOs began routinely denying fee exemptions to PHH beneficiaries, arguing the statutory reference to "BPL" in the RTI Act no longer applied. This created a hidden barrier: the very people targeted for food security relief, often the poorest and most information-needy were effectively priced out of RTI access, frustrating the Act's core promise of inclusive democracy.

Thanks to the persistent efforts of activist Asem Roshan Singh, this injustice has been decisively overturned. In the landmark judgment, the Manipur Information Commission held that PHH beneficiaries with valid certification from the competent authority are the contemporary statutory successors to the erstwhile BPL category.

The NFSA's restructuring does not abolish socio-economic vulnerability or extinguish associated concessions; it merely renames and refines the framework. 

Consequently, PHH holders are fully entitled to fee exemption under Section 7(5), and any contrary demand is legally unsustainable, administrative clarifications cannot retrospectively nullify this right.

This ruling is not a mere technical correction; it is a profound reaffirmation of democratic principles in a country where inequality remains entrenched. The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, was revolutionary precisely because it democratized information, empowering ordinary citizens, especially the vulnerable to question corruption, mismanagement, and exclusion in public schemes. 

Section 7(5)'s fee waiver was no afterthought; it was a deliberate safeguard to prevent poverty from becoming a gatekeeper to truth. When NFSA replaced BPL with PHH/AAY in 2013, the intent was to modernize targeting for food security, expanding coverage to roughly 67% of the population while preserving the essence of identifying the needy. 

NFSA aimed at a rights-based approach to food, not at dismantling other statutory protections for the poor.The post-NFSA denial of RTI exemptions, however, turned this reform into an unintended erosion of another right. 

In states like Manipur, where economic distress intersects with geographic isolation, ethnic tensions, and governance challenges, the practical impact was devastating. Poor households seeking details on PDS leakages, delayed pensions, MGNREGA irregularities, or local development funds found themselves blocked by fees they could ill afford. PIOs, citing the literal absence of "BPL" cards, could hide behind administrative ambiguity, creating a chilling effect on RTI usage among those who need it most.

The Commission's operative conclusion is unequivocal. PHH beneficiaries holding valid certification are entitled to exemption under Section 7(5), as PHH constitutes the contemporary statutory successor to BPL following NFSA's enforcement. 

Any fee demand contrary to valid certification is legally unsustainable and cannot be justified by subsequent administrative clarifications lacking retrospective effect. 

Public authorities must act fairly, reasonably, and with due diligence; procedural ambiguities cannot frustrate statutory rights. Deviations require clear statutory authority, reasoned orders, and due process. These findings form part of the permanent record and serve as binding guidance for all future RTI matters in Manipur involving PHH, AAY, or legacy BPL categories.

Another equally fair and thoughtful part of the judgment was the Commission's decision not to impose any penalty or fine on the SPIO (the government officer who handles RTI requests) under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

The Commission carefully looked at the situation and concluded that the officer had not acted with bad intentions or deliberately tried to block information. Instead, there was genuine confusion and uncertainty about how the new National Food Security Act rules affected the old RTI fee exemption for BPL people after BPL cards were stopped.

The officer followed the administrative guidelines available at the time, so it was an honest mistake rather than intentional wrongdoing. 

By choosing not to punish the officer personally, while still correcting the wrong fee demand, the Commission showed real maturity and balance in its approach, fixing the problem for citizens without unfairly blaming someone caught in a confusing legal change. This wise and even-handed decision sets a positive example and its reasoning can guide similar cases across the country.

Many states face the same NFSA-RTI mismatch; this precedent offers a persuasive path to harmonization. Statutory interpretation must be purposive, especially for welfare laws: the RTI Act protects the economically weak, and NFSA's silence on fees implies continuity, not repeal.

This case also celebrates citizen activism. Asem Roshan Singh turned personal grievance into statewide relief, reminding us that persistence can still bend the system toward justice.

Ultimately, this judgment restores faith in inclusive governance. Transparency is democracy’s oxygen, especially for the resource-scarce. By ensuring PHH beneficiaries inherit BPL’s RTI shield, Commissioner Koijam Radhashyam Singh and the Manipur Information Commission have fortified that supply. 

Other states must align; the Centre could clarify rules. Until then, this ruling stands as a beacon: welfare must empower, not silence, the people it uplifts.

In a nation pursuing equitable growth amid persistent poverty, such decisions remind us that true progress lies in enabling the needy not just to receive aid, but to question its delivery—freely, without fees or forgotten nomenclature standing in the way. 

This landmark ruling is a concrete step toward realizing Viksit Bharat, a developed India by 2047 where transparency and accountability empower every citizen, especially the poor, to participate fully in nation-building.