Supreme Court of India · 2018-07-23 · (2018) 17 SCC 324 · ★ Landmark
Proactive disclosure under §4 is a continuing duty; governments cannot substitute it with §6 responses.
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2018-07-23 |
| Citation | (2018) 17 SCC 324 |
| Bench | A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan |
| Petitioner | Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan & Anr. |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| RTI Act sections | §4(1)(b), §4(2) |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Section 4 is a continuing obligation; Rajasthan and other States directed to improve proactive disclosure.
The obligation under §4 to proactively disclose information is a continuing one, not a one-time exercise. Suo motu disclosure in accessible local language is the rule; it cannot be substituted by responses only upon §6 application.
§4, proactive disclosure, suo motu, MKSS
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
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 · last reviewed 21 April 2026.