Information commission rebukes women and child development officials after 4-month delay in order

The Pune bench of the Maharashtra State Information Commission issued a written decision in a case in just 50 minutes. Four months had passed since the hearing of the second appeal, yet the order had not been issued. The applicant made repeated complaints after growing tired of waiting, and only then did the decision come.

The commission noted that the Women and Child Development Commissionerate had violated the Right to Information Act, 2005. While rebuking the officials concerned, it also warned the Public Information Officer (PIO). The commission said disciplinary action could follow if the provisions of the law are not strictly followed in future.

RTI activist Milindkumar Salve, who is the state coordinator of the Sau Ekal Mahila Samiti and a member of the government committee for Mission Vatsalya, had filed an application with the commissionerate on December 31, 2024. He had sought district-wise details of beneficiaries of the Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Balsangopan Yojana and the Centre's Mission Vatsalya scheme, along with details of the grants disbursed to them.

Although the commissionerate had this information, PIO Yogesh Jawade did not provide it directly. He forwarded Salve's application to the district women and child development officers in all 36 districts of Maharashtra. It took 27 days to transfer the application, and Jawade took 56 days to inform Salve that it had been transferred.

Salve then filed the first appeal before Rahul More, the then Deputy Commissioner and first appellate authority. More upheld the PIO's decision, sent the application again to the 36 district offices and directed that the information be provided free of cost.

Dissatisfied with this decision, Salve filed a second appeal before the Pune bench of the State Information Commission. He said there was reason to suspect that the commissionerate was withholding information. As the reason, he pointed out that the department had given details of the child care scheme and a note to the Legislature Secretariat while answering a starred question asked in a session of the legislature.

The second appeal was heard on May 26, 2026, before Information Commissioner Makarand Ranade. At that hearing, Ranade also asked Salve to submit a written complaint. Decisions in cases heard around the same time were being issued, but Salve's order remained pending. After waiting four months, he made two complaints to the commission but received no reply.

Finally, Salve sent a third complaint by email and also contacted the Pune division's Information Commissioner on a personal contact number. The complaints were taken up promptly, and Salve received the written decision on the May 26 hearing within 50 minutes. A copy of the order was given to him recently.

In his order, Information Commissioner Makarand Ranade noted that PIO Yogesh Jawade had not implemented the order given by the first appellate authority, and that this was a violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The commission rebuked Jawade for serious negligence. It also warned that if the provisions of the law are not strictly followed while handling future applications, disciplinary proceedings under the law would be recommended.

The commission also said the Deputy Commissioner (Women and Child Development) in the commissionerate should be appointed as the information officer in this case, and that the information sought by appellant Milindkumar Salve should be provided free of cost within 15 days.