EC Refused To Share Details Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Official Visits Under RTI, Claims Saket Gokhale

New Delhi, August 21, 2026: Former Rajya Sabha member Saket Gokhale on Friday alleged that the Election Commission (EC) refused to disclose details of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s official visits and the expenditure incurred on them from public funds, citing “personal information” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Gokhale questioned how spending on official travel from public funds could be treated as personal information and accused the poll panel of lacking transparency. There was no immediate reaction from the EC to his allegations.

RTI Sought Details Of Official Travel

Gokhale said he filed the RTI application on June 18, seeking details of all official visits undertaken by Kumar since he assumed charge as CEC on Feb 19, 2025, along with the expenditure incurred from public funds.

The application sought the total number of domestic and foreign visits, visit-wise dates, destinations, purpose and mode of travel. It also sought details of officials accompanying the CEC at government expense and a break-up of expenditure on travel, accommodation, daily allowance, local transport and other expenses, PTI reports.

According to a copy of the RTI reply shared by Gokhale on X, the EC said in its July 31 response: “The information sought under these items relates to personal information and therefore cannot be shared under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

‘How Can This Be Personal Information?’

Questioning the EC’s decision, Gokhale asked: “How can expenditure incurred on official visits from public funds be called ‘personal information’?”

“Even the cost of PM’s foreign travel has been disclosed in Parliament. So what makes Gyanesh Kumar so special,” he asked.

Gokhale also questioned what the poll panel was seeking to conceal by refusing to disclose the expenditure. “What sort of public money has been spent on Gyanesh Kumar’s visits that ECI is scared to disclose it,” he asked.

The dispute raises a broader transparency question: whether details of completed official visits and expenditure from public funds should be withheld on privacy grounds. Gokhale’s application, according to the copy of the reply he shared, specifically sought information about completed official visits funded wholly or partly from public funds.

RTI Activist Questions Privacy Argument

RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj also criticised the poll panel’s response.

“First privacy of bahu-beti was cited to deny CCTV footage of polling stations, now privacy of CEC Gyanesh Kumar is being cited to deny details of official visits undertaken by him and the public money spent!” Bharadwaj said.

She linked the EC’s response to changes made to the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.

“This is exactly why the govt amended the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act - in the garb of protecting personal information, shield public servants from accountability,” she said.

Bharadwaj said Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was amended through the DPDP Act to expand the scope of the exemption covering personal information.

“Earlier the RTI only allowed denial of such personal information which had no relationship to public activity or interest,” she said.

Gokhale Alleges ‘Zero Accountability’

Gokhale alleged that the EC had become “a black hole” since Kumar took charge as CEC and accused the poll panel of lacking accountability and transparency.

“... A constitutional body is being run as a personal fiefdom of Modi-Shah and Gyanesh Kumar,” Gokhale alleged.

“Be it SIR or spending of public money -- ECI has ZERO accountability or transparency,” he alleged.

He said the response raised questions about the expenditure incurred on Kumar’s official travel. “What exactly is ECI trying to hide about Gyanesh Kumar’s trips? We need answers,” he said.

The allegations are Gokhale’s and remain unanswered by the EC in the information provided. But the controversy puts the focus on an important principle of public accountability: when official travel is paid for with public money, withholding expenditure details is likely to invite questions about where privacy ends and transparency begins.

Also Watch:

No Security Details Sought

According to the copy of the reply shared by Gokhale, his application sought information relating only to completed official visits funded wholly or partly from public funds.

It did not seek any prospective itinerary, real-time movement details or information about security, escort or protocol arrangements.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/