Table of Contents
Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022
Quick Reply: Another dismissed CBI appeal (2 February 2022): the information sought was personal, and §8(1)(j) did the work. Read with Sharat Kohli (2021), it shows the pattern — third-party personal material in a CBI file is where RTI asks go to die. Reframe around process records or the corruption/human-rights gateway of §24.
Central Information Commission · 2022-02-02 · CIC File No. IK/9140685
Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
Information denied under Section 8(1)(j)
Case details
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2022-02-02 |
| Citation | CIC File No. IK/9140685 |
| Bench | CIC Single Bench |
| Petitioner | Rajendra Singh Parihar |
| Respondent | Cbi |
| RTI Act sections | §8(1) |
| Outcome | Rejected |
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by the Commission
Reading the order
- File: CIC No. IK/9140685, decided 2 February 2022 — the same Commission stream as the 2021 CBI dismissals.
- Held: information denied under §8(1)(j) — personal information, no larger public interest shown to displace the exemption.
The pattern, and how to break it
- The §24 + §8(1)(j) double wall: CBI's Second Schedule status first, the privacy exemption second (see Section 24 and Section 8).
- Break it with framing: seek the complaint's progress, the closure report's existence, action-taken records — machinery facts, not personal ones.
- Plead the gateway: for corruption allegations, the §24 proviso is the route in; say so in the application, with facts.
- Aggregates beat individuals: counts, dates and stages of cases are not anyone's personal information.
Ratio decidendi
Information denied under Section 8(1)(j) — personal information; no public interest overriding.
Keywords
cbi
Similar cases in the corpus
- Sharat Kohli v. Cbi — CIC 2021 (CIC 2021)
- CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2013)
- CBI closure reports — CIC (CIC 2020)
- §24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2018)
Related
FAQs
Same result as Sharat Kohli — is CBI RTI pointless?
No — it is narrow, not closed: corruption and human-rights material has the §24 gateway, and process/aggregate records are routinely supplied.
The information is about a public servant — still personal?
Service and asset particulars of public servants are a recognised disclosure zone; but investigative material about identified individuals usually gets the 8(1)(j) treatment at CBI.
What should my queries look like?
“What is the status of complaint no. X” / “Whether a closure report was filed in FIR no. Y; if so, the date and the authority that approved it” — process, dates, stages.
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · expanded 27 August 2026; junk description rebuilt; pattern analysis and reframing guidance added.