Table of Contents
Sharat Kohli v. Cbi — CIC 2021
Quick Reply: The Commission dismissed the appeal: the information sought was held to be personal, attracting §8(1)(j). Two layers matter before you file against CBI at all — the Second Schedule status under §24 (disclosure only on corruption/human-rights grounds, with the Government's concurrence), and, on the facts here, the privacy ground. Asking for a third party's personal material in an investigative file is the weakest possible posture.
Central Information Commission · 2021-12-28 · CIC File No. IK/32054054
Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
Information sought is personal
Case details
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2021-12-28 |
| Citation | CIC File No. IK/32054054 |
| Bench | CIC Single Bench |
| Petitioner | Sharat Kohli |
| Respondent | Cbi |
| RTI Act sections | §8(1) |
| Outcome | Rejected |
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by the Commission
Reading the order
- What was sought: personal information, from the CBI — the file number (IK/32054054, 28 December 2021) places it in the ordinary second-appeal stream.
- What was held: the information sought is personal — §8(1)(j) applies, and the appeal fails.
- The context layers: CBI sits in the Second Schedule (§24): its records are outside the Act except where the information pertains to allegations of corruption or human-rights violations — and even then subject to the Government's concurrence (see our Section 24 page with the full Schedule). On top of that sits §8(1)(j) for personal information.
How to frame a request that survives
- Ask about the process, not the person: file movement, closure-report status, action-taken on a complaint — records about the machinery, not a third party's private life.
- Corruption/human-rights gateway: if your request concerns alleged corruption, plead that nexus expressly — it is the §24 proviso's doorway.
- Your own information: material about the applicant stands differently — identity yourself and the connection.
- Public interest: §8(1)(j) yields to larger public interest on facts, not adjectives — quantify why disclosure matters.
Ratio decidendi
Information sought is personal — exempt under §8(1)(j); appeal dismissed.
Keywords
cbi
Similar cases in the corpus
- Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022 (CIC 2022)
- 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
Is every CBI record exempt?
Not in theory: the §24 proviso opens corruption and human-rights material, subject to Central Government concurrence. In practice, expect the Schedule defence first and the exemption analysis second.
Can I get information about myself from a CBI file?
Your own personal records stand on a different footing — expect the balancing to engage §8(1)(j) but with you as the subject, and the investigation exemption §8(1)(h) while a probe is live.
What does a dismissal here cost me?
Nothing but the attempt — CIC second appeals are free. If the point matters, the Article 226 route after the Commission remains.
Where do I read the order?
The external link below carries the Commission's record for the file number.
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; §24 layers and framing guidance added from the corpus ratio only.