Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (2007)

Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007.
Bench: Justice Ravindra Bhat.
Date of judgment: 3 December 2007.
Court: High Court of Delhi.

The petitioner sought, under the RTI Act, the investigation report prepared by the Income Tax Department in connection with a proceeding involving his wife. He also sought copies of the tax evasion petition against her.

The CPIO refused, citing Section 8(1)(h) — that disclosure would impede the process of investigation. The First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission upheld the refusal. The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

Justice Ravindra Bhat held that the investigation in question had already concluded — the assessment had been passed. Whatever “investigation” existed for purposes of Section 8(1)(h) was over. The CPIO could not invoke the clause as a general shield for all records connected to a historical investigation.

The Court reasoned: the Act uses the words “would impede” — a future tense, requiring the PIO to show how disclosure would actually impede an ongoing process. A closed investigation cannot be impeded.

In language that is still quoted today, the Court observed:

“The Right to Information Act is an important statute aimed at curtailing the culture of secrecy… The disclosure of information is the rule. The exemptions listed in Section 8 are an exception.”

The Court remanded the matter to the CIC with a direction that the Information Commission must examine each document sought and give specific reasons for any refusal — a generic invocation of Section 8(1)(h) was not acceptable.

• Blueprint for writ-court review of RTI refusals. Bhagat Singh established the template that High Courts across India have since used when reviewing RTI refusals — demand specific reasoning from the Commission, not accept generic exemption labels.
• Narrow reading of Section 8(1)(h). PIOs cannot use “investigation pending” as a permanent shield. See Pendency of investigation and Investigation under RTI.
• Default-disclosure principle. The Court's formulation — “disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception” — is invoked in Commission orders when weighing any Section 8 refusal.

• The RTI Act, 2005 — current text. Section 8(1)(h).
• Pendency of investigation — Section 8(1)(h).
• Investigation under RTI.
• Justification for denial under RTI.
• Grounds for rejection.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).
• Case law library.

Bhagat Singh engages Section 8(1)(h), which was not touched by the DPDP Rules, 2025. The judgment remains fully good law. Its proportionality-adjacent reasoning on “specific impediment” also aligns well with the Puttaswamy framework applied to other clauses.

1. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007, High Court of Delhi, decided 3 December 2007.
2. The Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 8(1)(h), 19.

Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.