CIC directs Indian Bureau of Mines to revisit denial of DEM maps, disclose permissible info
The Central Information Commission has ordered the Indian Bureau of Mines to reconsider its refusal to provide Digital Elevation Model maps and share non-exempt information.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 8, 2026, 11:24 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 8, 2026, 11:24 a.m. ETFirst report
CIC Orders Indian Bureau of Mines to Revisit Denial of Mine Maps, Disclose Permissible Information
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit its denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps and provide permissible information after severing exempt portions, according to a report by The New Indian Express.
The administrative order, issued by the CIC, found IBM liable for improperly denying the maps under the 'confidential' label. The Commission instructed IBM to re-examine the request and disclose all non-exempt information.
The development was reported on September 8, 2026. The full details of the order have not been independently verified by this report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 15:27current
First published.
- Version 18 Sept 2026, 15:24current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.