Mere Pendency of a Final Decision Is Not a Valid Reason to Deny RTI

In Appellant v. Medical Council of India (CIC File No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001453, decided 9 January 2017), the Central Information Commission addressed a PIO refusal on an RTI seeking the status of a misconduct proceeding before the MCI Ethics Committee against a doctor. The PIO denied information citing that “the matter is pending”. The Commission set aside the denial and held:

“Mere pendency of final decision / examination / consideration of an issue is not good enough reason to deny information unless supported by valid reason and justification to substantiate that disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the interest of the Respondent.”

The Commission further ruled that describing the minutes as “quasi-judicial” does not create an exemption — because there is no such exemption in the RTI Act — and directed disclosure of assessor qualifications under §4(1)(b) in the public interest.

When a PIO writes “the matter is pending / under consideration / sub-judice / before a committee”, they are not giving you a reasoned §8 denial. Three concrete implications:

• Every §8 denial must cite a specific sub-clause (for example §8(1)(h) for an investigation, §8(1)(i) for Cabinet deliberations, §8(1)(e) for a fiduciary relationship).
• The PIO must show how disclosure would prejudice the pending matter — a reasoned nexus, not a label.
• “Quasi-judicial” is a judicial concept, not an RTI exemption. The Act's exemptions are the 10 sub-clauses of §8(1), full stop.

• Section 7(8)(i) — every denial must state the specific reasons, the provision relied on, and the appeal rights.
• Section 8(1) — the only grounds for refusal; ten narrow exemptions.
• Section 8(1)(h) — genuinely applies during an investigation, but ends when the investigation is complete. See §8(1)(h) framework.
• Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers, but the proviso mandates release after the decision is taken. See §8(1)(i) framework and R.K. Jain v. Union of India (SC 2013).
• Section 10 — where part of a record is exempt, the rest must still be severed and disclosed.
• Section 19(8)(a) — the Commission's power to direct disclosure and set aside defective orders.

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC 2007) — a §8 citation must be specific and reasoned; bare labels are invalid.
• Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi HC 2014) — once an investigation concludes, §8(1)(h) ceases and records are disclosable.
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India (SC 2013) — post-decision disclosure of cabinet and deliberative records; the pending-matter rationale ends when the matter is complete.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011) — exemptions under §8 must be strictly construed; disclosure is the rule.
• Secretary, Department of Posts v. B.S. Dogra (Delhi HC 2012) — internal deliberations are not automatically exempt.

Browse the full case-law database — 397 curated rulings for more.

If the PIO has refused your RTI citing “pendency” or “quasi-judicial” or “under consideration” without more, use this:

Ground of Appeal:
The Central Public Information Officer has denied the information on the
sole ground that the matter is pending before [committee / tribunal / office].

This is not a valid ground under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The
Central Information Commission, in CIC/YA/A/2016/001453 dated 9 January
2017, has specifically held that "mere pendency of final decision /
examination / consideration of an issue is not good enough reason to
deny information unless supported by valid reason and justification to
substantiate that disclosure of the information would be detrimental to
the interest of the Respondent."

Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information
Commissioner// (2007) has held that a bare citation of Section 8 without a
specific sub-clause and a reasoned nexus to the feared harm is not a valid
refusal.

I therefore respectfully submit that:
(a) the impugned order be set aside;
(b) the CPIO be directed to furnish the information within 15 days; and
(c) show-cause proceedings under Section 20 be considered for a denial
    that is unreasoned and contrary to settled CIC jurisprudence.

Before conceding to a “pendency” refusal, ask three questions:

1. Which specific §8 sub-clause did the PIO cite? If the answer is “none” or “generally §8”, the denial fails the Bhagat Singh standard.
2. Is the harm concrete or theoretical? A real §8(1)(h) investigation prejudice (witness identity, tipping off a suspect) is real; an abstract “might influence the outcome” is not.
3. Is the matter still active? A concluded investigation, a decided appeal, or a completed inquiry loses the pendency shield automatically — R.K. Jain and Adesh Kumar apply.

Yes, there are narrow cases where pendency matters:

• Live investigation under §8(1)(h) — during an active CBI / police / ED investigation, case-diary and operational records may be exempt. See ED operational records — Delhi HC 2022.
• Active Cabinet deliberation under §8(1)(i) — while a decision is pending, the papers are protected; once announced, they open up.
• §11 third-party notice pending — if notice has been issued, the 40-day window must complete before disclosure.

Even then the PIO must cite the specific sub-clause and show the harm. “Pending” alone never suffices.

Q1. My PIO said “the matter is sub-judice” — is that valid?

Only if a court has specifically ordered non-publication, or if disclosure would constitute contempt (§8(1)(b)). Mere pendency of a case in court is not automatic exemption. See §8(1)(b) framework.

Q2. The minutes of a committee are described as “quasi-judicial”. Does that mean they are exempt?

No. The CIC specifically rejected this argument in CIC/YA/A/2016/001453. There is no “quasi-judicial” exemption in the RTI Act. Minutes are disclosable unless one of the 10 §8(1) clauses specifically applies.

Q3. What if the PIO says “the investigation is continuing, we will share after”?

§8(1)(h) can cover active investigations but only where disclosure would impede the investigation. The PIO must document the specific impedance. After the investigation concludes (charge-sheet filed or closure report), the records must be released.

Q4. Can I ask for information while an appeal is pending?

Yes. Appellate pendency of a matter does not trigger any §8 exemption on the underlying records unless a court has issued a specific restraint. File the RTI normally; if refused on “appeal pending” grounds, file a First Appeal citing this blog and Bhagat Singh.

Q5. I received a refusal. What do I do now?

1. Use the RTI Assistant — First Appeal mode — paste the PIO refusal, the AI drafts the appeal with exact counter-grounds.
2. File within 30 days of the refusal under §19(1) to the First Appellate Authority.
3. If refused again, file a Second Appeal to the CIC/SIC within 90 days under §19(3).

• Section 8(1)(h) — Investigation and Prosecution
• Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet Papers
• Section 8(1)(b) — Contempt of Court
• Pendency of Investigation — detailed explanation
• PIO Reply Guide — reasoned order format
• Section 19(1) First Appeal Guide
• Section 19(3) Second Appeal to CIC/SIC
• Case-law database — 397 rulings

• Appellant v. Medical Council of India, CIC/YA/A/2016/001453, decided 9 January 2017.
• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, Delhi HC, (2007) 146 DLT 385.
• Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, Delhi HC, (2014) 207 DLT 484.
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794 (SC).
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (SC).
• Secretary, Department of Posts v. B.S. Dogra, Delhi HC, 2012.
• Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 7(8)(i), 8(1), 10, 19(1), 19(3), 19(8), 20.

Last reviewed: 22 April 2026. Current with DPDP Rules 2025 (effective 14 November 2025).