The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued over three lakh orders since October 2005. A handful of those orders permanently changed how India interprets the Right to Information Act, 2005 — and knowing them gives you a decisive edge in any RTI appeal. This index groups the ten most consequential decisions by the RTI Act section they turned on, with a one-line summary and a link to the full citizen-facing analysis.
Shortcut: use our free AI RTI Drafter to auto-cite the correct CIC decision in your RTI application.
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Subhash Agarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India | 2009 | Judges' asset declarations are not a national-security secret; the CJI's office is a public authority. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (CIC Full Bench) | 2015 | RBI cannot hide bank inspection reports behind §8(1)(d); public interest overrides commercial confidence for banking regulators. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (CIC → SC) | 2011 | Examiners do not hold answer scripts in a fiduciary capacity; evaluated answer sheets must be disclosed on request. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| CIC on Whistleblower Identity Protection 2019 | 2019 | Informant identity inside a vigilance complaint is protected under §8(1)(g); disclosure can endanger the complainant's life and safety. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Girish Deshpande v. CIC (SC 2013) | 2013 | Personal service records and ACRs of a third-party officer are exempt under §8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is established. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, MHA 2008 | 2008 | Silence beyond 30 days under §7(1) is deemed refusal; penalty must be imposed for each day of delay beyond the statutory limit. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Subhash Chandra Agarwal — Political Parties (CIC Full Bench 2013) | 2013 | Six national political parties are public authorities under §2(h); the second-appeal route under §19 applies to them. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhdev v. SP Karnal (CIC 2016) | 2016 | Maximum ₹25,000 penalty is mandatory where the PIO's delay was wilful; “insufficient reason” alone triggers §20(1). |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| File Notings as Public Records — CIC Full Bench 2006 | 2006 | File notings are “information” and must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b); they are not exempt merely because they record internal deliberation. |
| Case | Year | What it decided |
|---|---|---|
| Third-Party Notice Timeline — CIC 2011 | 2011 | The §11 third-party notice procedure is mandatory before disclosing information that concerns a named private entity; failure vitiates the order. |
Each page in this section follows a citizen-first format: a plain-English direct answer, the verbatim operative paragraph, and practical guidance on how to use the ruling in your own RTI or appeal. The corpus will expand with 20 more decisions in the next batch — covering Section 6(3) transfer rules, Section 4(1)(d) reasons for decisions, and key High Court rulings on CIC jurisdiction.
Related tools: