Activists allege preferential allotment and “evasion” under RTI Act as officials cite ‘voluminous information’
New Delhi: An RTI reply from the Jammu and Kashmir Resident Commission regarding room allotments at J&K House, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, has triggered fresh allegations of lack of transparency, with activists claiming that access to public accommodation is being influenced and key records are being withheld.
The controversy stems from a response issued by the Resident Commission to an RTI application filed in January 2026, seeking details of room allotments, guest arrivals, booking requests, and revenue records of J&K House in Chanakyapuri.
According to the reply, only partial information was provided. While the Commission disclosed that Block B has 24 rooms, details related to guest arrivals, booking requests, accepted and rejected applications, and revenue records were not shared. Instead, the applicant was asked to “personally visit the Resident office” to inspect records, with officials stating that the information sought was “voluminous in nature.”
RTI activists have raised serious objections to this response, alleging that such grounds are often used to deny information that should otherwise be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. They argue that public authorities are mandated to provide information in accessible formats and cannot routinely cite “voluminous data” as a reason for non-disclosure.
Activists further claim that the allotment of rooms at the J&K House is not being carried out on merit or genuine need. “There is a perception that only individuals with influence are able to secure accommodation, while ordinary citizens from Jammu and Kashmir struggle to get rooms,” an activist said.
Concerns have also been raised about the functioning of outsourced staff at the guest house. Sources allege that although contracts are periodically changed through tenders, much of the staff has remained the same for years, raising questions about the transparency and effectiveness of the outsourcing process. Complaints regarding staff behaviour with guests have also surfaced.
The RTI reply also references an existing government policy on allotment, but does not elaborate on whether and how deviations from the policy are monitored or recorded.
Legal experts note that under the RTI Act, authorities can offer inspection of records if the data is extensive, but must still facilitate access in a reasonable and time-bound manner. “Inviting applicants for physical inspection cannot become a substitute for disclosure, especially when digitisation is feasible,” an expert said.
The issue has now prompted demands for a thorough inquiry into the allotment process, adherence to RTI norms, and overall management of the J&K House. Activists have called for stricter accountability of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), alleging violation of the spirit of transparency enshrined in the law.
As the matter gains attention, it remains to be seen whether the administration will initiate corrective measures or order an independent audit of records to address the concerns raised.
