Section 11 RTI Act: Third-Party Consultation Explained

Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires the Public Information Officer to consult a third party before disclosing information related to or supplied by them. When an RTI application seeks information about someone other than the applicant (a contractor, an employee, a bidder, a beneficiary), the PIO must follow the §11 procedure: notice within 5 days, third-party reply within 10 days, and a final PIO decision within 40 days. The third party has a right to object and to file the First Appeal against the disclosure order. §11 exists to balance the applicant's right to know with the third party's right to be heard.

§11 applies in three situations:

1. Information relates to a third party. The applicant has asked for records concerning someone other than themselves. Examples: contract details of a vendor, salary of a public servant, beneficiary list for a scheme, complaint against an employee, foreign-travel records of an officer.
2. Information was supplied in confidence by a third party. The third party gave the public authority the information on a confidential basis. The PIO must consult before disclosing.
3. The information is treated as confidential by the third party. Even if no express confidentiality agreement exists, the third party has held the record as confidential (commercial sensitive, personal medical, family-financial).

§11 does not apply when:

• The applicant seeks his or her own record.
• The information is already in the public domain (gazette, court order, published list).
• The information is required to be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).

Step 1. Day 1 to Day 5. Within five days of receiving the RTI application, the PIO must give written notice to the third party. The notice states:

• The applicant is seeking information about you.
• A brief summary of the information sought.
• Your right to make a representation against disclosure within 10 days.
• The 40-day decision deadline.

Step 2. Day 5 to Day 15. The third party has 10 days from the date of the notice to make a representation. The representation must say:

• Whether the information is confidential.
• Whether disclosure would cause harm.
• Whether the information is exempt under §8 or §9.
• Any other ground for refusal.

Step 3. Day 15 to Day 40. The PIO weighs the third party's representation against the public interest in disclosure. The PIO records a written reasoned decision under §11(3). The decision is communicated to:

• The applicant.
• The third party.

Step 4. Day 40 onwards. If the PIO has ordered disclosure, the third party has 30 days from the decision to file a First Appeal under §19(2) and stop the disclosure. The PIO must hold the information until the appeal is decided.

• Right to notice. A written notice from the PIO before disclosure, with the substance of the request.
• Right to be heard. A 10-day representation window. The PIO must consider the representation before deciding.
• Right to a reasoned order. The PIO's decision under §11(3) must record reasons for accepting or rejecting the third-party objection.
• Right to First Appeal. §19(2) gives the third party 30 days to appeal against the disclosure order to the same FAA.
• Right to Second Appeal. §19(3) gives the third party the same 90-day window to file a Second Appeal with the Information Commission.

A disclosure order without §11 consultation is procedurally illegal. The Central Information Commission has overturned disclosure orders on this ground alone. ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (Supreme Court, 2011) confirmed the §11 procedure is mandatory where third-party information is involved.

Remedies for the third party whose information was disclosed without §11 notice:

1. Damages action under the Information Technology Act, 2000 or common law for breach of confidence, where loss is provable.
2. Departmental complaint against the PIO for breach of statutory duty.
3. Writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 against the public authority for breach of the §11 procedure.

For an applicant who suspects the PIO has refused without consulting the third party (a common excuse): demand to see the §11 notice and the third-party's representation in your First Appeal. The PIO must produce both, or the refusal is open to challenge.

If you receive a §11 notice from a PIO, follow these steps:

1. Read the notice carefully. Identify the applicant, the information sought, and the 10-day deadline.
2. Reply within 10 days in writing. State your objection with reasons. Cite §8(1)(d) (commercial confidence), §8(1)(e) (fiduciary), §8(1)(j) (personal information), or other relevant sub-clauses.
3. Ask for a copy of the PIO's reasoned order under §11(3).
4. If the PIO orders disclosure, file a First Appeal within 30 days under §19(2).
5. If the FAA upholds disclosure, file a Second Appeal with the CIC or SIC within 90 days.

• Skipping the notice entirely. The PIO refuses the RTI without notifying the third party. The applicant has no way to know whether the third party objects or whether the refusal is the PIO's own decision.
• Treating §11 as a refusal ground. The PIO refuses information citing “third-party objection” without producing the third party's representation. §11 is a procedure, not a substantive ground for refusal. The substantive grounds are in §8 and §9.
• Using §11 to delay. The PIO sends the §11 notice on Day 25 and runs out the clock without deciding by Day 40. The PIO's failure to decide within 40 days is a deemed refusal under §7 read with §11(3).
• Notice without substance. The PIO sends a vague notice (“information about you is sought”) without the substance of the request. The third party cannot make a meaningful representation. The CIC has held such notices defective.

• ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (Supreme Court, 2011). Confirmed the §11 procedure is mandatory where third-party information is involved. PIO cannot bypass §11.
• Treesa Irish v. CPIO, Income Tax (CIC, 2014). Salary and asset details of a public servant are NOT third-party information for §11 purposes; they are public-activity records.
• Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Ministry of Petroleum (CIC, 2010). Vendor contract details are subject to §11 consultation, but a vendor's blanket “commercially sensitive” claim does not survive the §8(2) public-interest test.
• R.S. Madireddy v. Department of Posts (CIC, 2017). Where the third party has not replied within 10 days, the PIO has to proceed with the disclosure decision; silence is not consent.

The three sections work together but do different jobs:

• §11 is a procedure: who is consulted, when, and how.
• §8 is a list of substantive grounds for refusal.
• §10 is a severability rule: redact the exempt part, disclose the rest.

A complete §11 refusal cites the §8 sub-clause the third party has invoked, applies the §8(2) public-interest balance, and severs the exempt part under §10.

No. The CIC has held salary records of a public servant are public-activity information, not third-party information under §11. The PIO discloses without consultation. The same applies to attendance, leave, and disciplinary records of public servants.

10 days from the date of the notice under §11(1). Beyond 10 days the PIO has to proceed with the disclosure decision. Silence is treated as no objection.

The Act does not require this. The notice has to state the substance of the information sought; the applicant's name is at the PIO's discretion. Some PIOs redact the applicant's name to protect against retaliation.

Under §19(2), the FAA hears the third party's appeal against a PIO disclosure order. The FAA applies the same §8(2) public-interest test and decides whether disclosure should go ahead or be reversed.

Yes. The CIC has repeatedly overturned disclosure orders for failure to follow §11. ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (SC 2011) is the leading case. Cite the case in the First and Second Appeal.

The CIC view is mixed. Where the deceased person was a public servant, the records are treated as public-activity. Where the records are private (medical history, family affairs), §11 still applies, and the legal heirs are the third party for notice purposes.

A bare assertion is not enough. The third party has to establish: (1) the information falls under §8(1)(d), (2) disclosure would harm the competitive position, and (3) the §8(2) public-interest does not override. A vague “commercial-sensitive” tag fails.

• RTI Application Format 2026
• First Appeal Format with grounds checklist
• Third-party information, deeper explainer
• §11 of the RTI Act, full text
• §8 exemptions explainer
• §19 appeal mechanism
• The RTI Playbook. The complete guide to filing RTI in 2026.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005. §11, §8, §10, §19.
• ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (Supreme Court, 2011).
• CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supreme Court, 2019).
• Central Information Commission. cic.gov.in.
• Department of Personnel and Training. dopt.gov.in.
• Indian Kanoon, full case text archive. indiankanoon.org.

Last reviewed: 28 May 2026, RTI Wiki editorial team.