Investigation and inquiry reports under RTI

information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; — §8(1)(h), RTI Act, 2005.

Note what it does not say: no blanket “police records”, no “till the trial ends”, no “sealed forever”. The PIO must show how disclosure would impede the process — a claim, not a chant.

A Division Bench of the CIC, in Shri Gobind Jha v. Army HQrs. (Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00039, dated 1 June 2006), observed:

“While in criminal law, an investigation can be said to be completed with the filing of charge sheet in the appropriate court by an investigating agency, in cases of vigilance related inquiries, misconduct and disciplinary matters, the investigation can be said to be over only when the competent authority makes a determination about the culpability or otherwise of the person or persons investigated against. In that sense, the word ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) should be construed rather broadly and should include all inquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases. In all such matters, the inquiry or investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about the presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/inquiry report from the investigation/inquiry officer.”

Two consequences follow:

• Criminal matters: charge sheet filed → investigation complete → §8(1)(h) no longer covers the investigation record (the court's exhibit rules govern the trial record).
• Vigilance / disciplinary matters: the inquiry officer's report alone does not end it — the competent authority's determination does. Ask for that determination; its existence dates the exemption's death.

• While the probe is live: status and stage of investigation, the registered case details, periodic progress — a point-wise status is rarely “impeding”.
• After charge sheet: the charge sheet itself, the final report's conclusions, action taken on it.
• Vigilance/disciplinary: the inquiry report plus the competent authority's determination on it; the action-taken report.
• Your own case: as the affected person you additionally argue proportionality — a blanket refusal to the very subject of the inquiry is the weakest refusal of all.

• Force the PIO to particularise the impediment — “may impede” speculation is not enough; first appeal on that footing.
• Pair §8(1)(h) challenges with the completion test above: if the charge sheet or determination exists, demand it and the report together.
• First Appeal Generator drafts the framework in a minute.

No. Status, stage and case-registration facts are routinely disclosed; only material whose release would actually impede the live probe is covered.

The completion test is satisfied; §8(1)(h) falls away for the investigation record. Ask for the charge sheet and final conclusions.

Per the CIC's broad construction, it stays live only until the competent authority determines culpability — then the report and determination are disclosable.

Different animal — that is §24 territory for Second Schedule bodies. See Section 24 — excluded organisations.

• The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)
• Section 8 — Exemptions
• Section 24 — excluded organisations
• Lalita Kumari — FIR registration
• All explanations
• Why RTI gets rejected
• First RTI template
• 25 RTI Questions Answered
• The RTI Playbook book

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, §8(1)(h).
2. CIC, Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 1 June 2006 (Shri Gobind Jha v. Army HQrs.) — quoted verbatim above.

Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. Dead cic.gov.in PDF link replaced with the order citation in text; completion test, ask-for lists, appeal strategy and FAQ added around the preserved CIC quote.