Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (Central Information Commission, 2008-04-20) CIC/AT/A/2008/000123 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 11. §11 third-party process is procedural; cannot be a substantive refusal ground. Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with third party.
§11 third-party process is procedural; cannot be a substantive refusal ground.
Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with third party. It is not a substantive exemption. PIO cannot refuse the request outright citing §11 — must follow the consultation procedure and decide on merits.
§11 mandates consultation; outright refusal under §11 invalid.
This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.
Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.