Table of Contents

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 — RTI Wiki

Quick Reply: Section 11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption. A PIO may not refuse a request outright by citing §11, and may not disclose confidential third-party information without first giving the third party notice and a hearing.

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 2011-09-30) LPA 719/2010 with LPA 291/2011 and 292/2011 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 11. Section 11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption: a PIO cannot refuse a request outright by citing §11, but equally cannot disclose third-party confidential information without first following the §11 notice-and-hearing procedure.

Holding

Section 11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption. A PIO may neither refuse outright under §11 nor disclose third-party confidential information without following the §11 notice-and-hearing procedure.

Ratio

Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with the third party. It is not a substantive exemption. The PIO cannot refuse the request outright citing §11, and must follow the consultation procedure and decide on merits. Equally, the PIO cannot disclose information that is prima facie confidential to a third party without first giving that third party notice, because §11 ensures that the principles of natural justice are complied with.

Section(s) applied

Practitioner takeaway

§11 mandates the consultation procedure. Outright refusal under §11 is invalid, and so is disclosure of third-party confidential information without notice.

Citation

Why this case matters for citizens

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.

Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds

  1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
  2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
  3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
  4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Citing this ruling in your appeal

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.

, , , ,