FAA Checklist for Section 8 Exemption Appeals

Section 8 is the most-cited and the most-misused provision in RTI practice. PIOs reach for it when records are inconvenient, citing the wrong sub-clause and skipping the public-interest test. The FAA is the first line of correction. This checklist gives the FAA a clause-by-clause framework so that her speaking order reads like one.

• The PIO has refused part or all of the application citing one or more sub-clauses of Section 8(1).
• The PIO has invoked Section 9 (copyright) or Section 11 (third party) along with Section 8.
• The appellant has alleged the PIO's refusal is “blanket” or “unreasoned”.
• The PIO has not addressed Section 8(2) override.

• Section 8(1) — ten exemption clauses, (a) to (j).
• Section 8(2) — public-interest override.
• Section 8(3) — twenty-year rule for non-exempt categories.
• Section 9 — copyright objections.
• Section 10 — severance.
• Section 11 — third-party procedure.
• Section 22 — RTI Act overrides the Official Secrets Act.

1. Point 1: Which sub-clause? Section 8(1)(a) sovereignty; (b) court / contempt; © breach of privilege; (d) commercial confidence; (e) fiduciary; (f) foreign government; (g) life and physical safety; (h) investigation / prosecution; (i) Cabinet papers; (j) personal information unconnected to public activity.
2. Point 2: Test for that sub-clause met? Each sub-clause has its own test. For (j), the *Girish Deshpande* three-fold test (information has no relation to public activity, disclosure has no public interest, disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy). For (d), the harm to commercial position must be specifically pleaded.
3. Point 3: Section 8(2) override? Even if the sub-clause is engaged, disclosure must follow if larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. The PIO must record this balance; if she has not, the FAA must.
4. Point 4: Severance under Section 10? Where part of the record is exempt and part is not, Section 10(1) requires the PIO to redact the exempt portion and supply the rest. A “blanket” refusal that does not consider severance is bad.
5. Point 5: Section 6(3) misdirection? Sometimes the records simply lie elsewhere. The FAA should consider whether transfer under Section 6(3) is the right outcome, rather than refusal under Section 8.

• Test: would disclosure prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, or relations with foreign states?
• Trap: “national security” stamped on routine files. Ask the PIO to identify the specific records and the specific harm.
• Override: rare; Section 8(2) does not generally help here.

• Test: would disclosure attract contempt of court?
• Trap: PIO refuses every record that mentions a court. Test is whether the disclosure itself would be contempt, not whether the matter is in court.

• Trap: rarely applies to ordinary records.

• Test: information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.
• Trap: refusal because “the contractor will object”. The harm must be specific and to the contractor's competitive position, not embarrassment.
• Override: strong public interest in tender / price disclosure. Section 8(2) often tips disclosure.

• Test: information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.
• Trap: PIO claims fiduciary relationship between government and itself — wrong. Fiduciary in RTI means doctor-patient, banker-customer, lawyer-client style relationships.

• Test: information received in confidence from a foreign government.
• Trap: rarely applicable.

• Test: information that would endanger life or physical safety, or identify a confidential source.
• Trap: misused for whistleblower files. The harm must be specific.

• Test: information that would impede investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
• Trap: claimed for years after the investigation closes. Once the matter is concluded, the exemption ceases.

• Test: Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.
• Trap: mis-applied to file notings of officers. Cabinet papers means actual Cabinet submissions and decisions.
• Override: post-decision, the proviso allows disclosure of facts and reasons.

• Test: *Girish Deshpande* three-fold test.
• Trap: PIO refuses any record bearing a name.
• Override: strong, especially where the personal info relates to a public office held by the person.

ORDER UNDER SECTION 19(6) OF THE RTI ACT, 2005

[Parties and facts as in standard speaking order]

5. Findings on Section 8.
   (a) The PIO has invoked Section 8(1)(_).
   (b) The test specific to that clause is examined: [reasoning].
   (c) Section 8(2) override is examined: [reasoning].
   (d) Section 10 severance: [whether possible].
   (e) Conclusion: [allowed / partly allowed / rejected].

6. Order.
   [As appropriate]

• Approving the PIO's refusal in one line without engaging with the five points.
• Confusing Section 8(1)(j) with privacy as such — the Act has its own test.
• Ignoring Section 8(2) override — not optional, must be addressed.
• No severance examination — most refusals can be saved by partial disclosure.
• Citing only the sub-clause number without the wording — the order should quote the relevant statutory text.

Yes. The PIO must satisfy each independently. If even one is engaged, refusal is justified for that portion, subject to Section 8(2).

A weighing exercise. The harm of disclosure (named in the sub-clause) versus the public interest in disclosure (transparency, accountability, exposure of corruption, public-money trail).

Section 19(5) — the burden is on the PIO to prove that the refusal is justified. The FAA must record this in her order.

Yes. The RTI Act overrides the Official Secrets Act. PIOs sometimes hide behind OSA notings; the FAA must reject that.

No. The proviso to Section 8(1)(i) allows post-decision disclosure of the reasons.

Yes. The FAA can call for the file under her administrative authority.

That is itself a Section 18 / Section 20 issue for the Commission.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22.
• *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC*, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• *CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal*, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• Department of Personnel and Training, cic.gov.in — guidance to PIOs and FAAs.
• Central Information Commission, cic.gov.in — illustrative Section 8 decisions.

• FAA speaking order format
• FAA powers and limits
• Deemed-refusal checklist
• Third-party appeals
• RTI rejected? How to fix it

Last reviewed: 9 May 2026.

When PIO denies information under Section 8, here is the complete appeal checklist for each exemption:

1. Section 8(1)(a): Sovereign security. (a) ground: affects sovereignty, security, strategic interests, or relations with foreign states, (b) appeal argument: the information is not related to sovereign/security matters (ask the PIO to specify which sub-clause applies), © the CIC has held that generic claims of “security” without specific reasoning are invalid.
2. Section 8(1)(b): Prohibited by law. (a) ground: disclosure is prohibited by any other law, (b) appeal argument: identify the specific law that prohibits disclosure (the PIO cannot claim a general prohibition), © check if the cited law actually prohibits disclosure or merely restricts it.
3. Section 8(1)©: Breach of privilege. (a) ground: breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature, (b) appeal argument: the information is not part of parliamentary proceedings (ask for the specific privilege claimed), © this clause is rarely invoked correctly.
4. Section 8(1)(d): Commercial confidence. (a) ground: commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, (b) appeal argument: the information is not a trade secret (government contracts and tender details are public — CIC has repeatedly held this), © the larger public interest test applies (Section 8(2) — if public interest outweighs the harm, disclosure is mandatory).
5. Section 8(1)(e): Fiduciary relationship. (a) ground: information in fiduciary relationship, (b) appeal argument: the government is not in a fiduciary relationship with the applicant (CIC has held that exam answer sheets, property records, and service records are NOT fiduciary), © the larger public interest test applies.
6. Section 8(1)(f): Life or physical safety. (a) ground: information could endanger life or physical safety, (b) appeal argument: the information does not identify any person at risk, © the identity of the information source can be severed (Section 10 — partial disclosure).
7. Section 8(1)(g): Endanger informant. (a) ground: disclosure could endanger the source of information or another person, (b) appeal argument: sever the identifying information (Section 10) and disclose the rest, © the CIC has held that complainant identity in corruption cases can be protected while disclosing the action taken.
8. Section 8(1)(h): Investigation in progress. (a) ground: would impede an ongoing investigation, (b) appeal argument: the investigation is unreasonably delayed (CIC has held that indefinite denial under this clause is not valid — ask for the expected completion date), © the status and action taken can be disclosed without impeding the investigation.
9. Section 8(1)(i): Cabinet papers. (a) ground: cabinet papers including deliberations of the Council of Ministers, (b) appeal argument: the decision has already been made public (the exemption applies only until the decision is made public), © ask for the date the decision was made public.
10. Section 8(2): Public interest override. (a) even if the information falls under 8(1)(a) to (i), it MUST be disclosed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm, (b) argue: (i) the information relates to corruption or human rights violations, (ii) the public interest is served by transparency, (iii) the harm from disclosure is minimal.
11. Section 10: Severability. (a) if only part of the information is exempt, the PIO must sever the exempt portion and disclose the rest, (b) appeal argument: the PIO denied the entire information instead of severing the exempt portion.

See Find PIO and Section 20 Penalty.