Case law library — landmark RTI Act decisions

A curated library of the most important judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Information Commissions on the working of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Cases are grouped by the section of the Act they principally engage. Each entry shows court, year, citation, a one-line plain-English holding, and a status note on whether the case remains good law after the November 2025 amendment.

• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428. Supreme Court. The citizen's right to know about the affairs of the Government is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Foundational for the statutory right later codified in the 2005 Act.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87. Supreme Court. Right of the people to be informed about every public act. The “judges' transfer” case; the reasoning on transparency in government is foundational.
• People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399. Supreme Court. Voters' right to information on the criminal antecedents and assets of candidates. Judicial precursor to the transparency regime codified by the 2005 Act.
• K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Supreme Court (Nine-Judge Bench). Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 19. The four-limb proportionality test now governs every Section 8(1)(j) decision, especially after 14 November 2025.

• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497. Supreme Court. An evaluated examination answer sheet is “information” under Section 2(f). Public authority is not bound to create new records, but must disclose existing records. Leading authority on the scope of “information”.
• Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar v State of Gujarat, Gujarat High Court, 5 May 2026. Once accessible records and copies are supplied, an RTI applicant cannot insist that the CPIO hand over original documents. RTI proceedings also cannot be converted into an adjudication on the correctness of information supplied or the underlying recruitment dispute.

• Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82. Supreme Court. A cooperative society is a “public authority” only if it satisfies one of the Section 2(h) tests: formed by Constitution / law / notification of the appropriate Government, or owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government.
• DAV College Trust v. Director of Public Instructions, (2019) 9 SCC 185. Supreme Court. An NGO which is substantially financed by the appropriate Government is a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(ii). The test of “substantial financing” is not mathematical; it looks at whether the body would not function but for the public grant.
• Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Indian National Congress (CIC Full Bench, 3 June 2013). Central Information Commission. Six national political parties declared public authorities under Section 2(h). Relevant for practitioners applying the Section 2(h) test to non-traditional bodies. (Order has been subject of later contest; still the Commission's stated position.)

• Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 1. Supreme Court. Directed the Union Government and State Governments to fill vacancies in the Information Commissions within a stipulated period. The Commission's effectiveness is a function of its composition. Practitioners use this order when the Commission is understaffed and pendency impedes disposal.

• Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (CBI RTI carve-out), Delhi High Court (2024). Discussed the scope of Section 24 and the interaction with Section 8(1)(a). The intelligence and security agency carve-out is not a blanket bar on information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

• Reliance Industries v. Gujarat State PCB, various. Supreme Court and High Courts. The “commercial confidence” test looks at harm to competitive position, not mere business origin of the record. Public authority must apply the severability test under Section 10.
• Delhi High Court on PhD theses (December 2024). Section 8(1)(d) does not automatically shield an unpublished PhD thesis from disclosure where the public interest in academic integrity and verification of qualifications is engaged.

• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. Supreme Court. A regulator does not stand in a fiduciary relationship with the entities it regulates. Inspection reports, Action Taken Reports, and similar RBI records are disclosable subject to Section 8(2) balancing.
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781. Supreme Court. An examining body does not stand in a fiduciary relationship with its examiners, moderators, or candidates. Post-evaluation examination records are disclosable.

• Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61. Supreme Court. The identity of individual examiners is protected on the ground that disclosure could endanger their safety, but information that enables evaluation of the fairness of the examination process is disclosable.

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, Delhi High Court, 3 December 2007. The Section 8(1)(h) exemption requires a public authority to demonstrate that disclosure would impede the process of investigation, prosecution, or apprehension. A bare assertion that an investigation is pending is not enough.

After 14 November 2025, Section 8(1)(j) has been substituted by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public interest override that used to sit within clause (j) has been removed; it now operates through Section 8(2). See DPDP Rules, 2025 and PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212. Supreme Court. Service record, annual property returns, movable and immovable assets, memos and show-cause notices issued to a public servant are “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j). Leading authority on the term. Remains good law on the scope of “personal information”; the override portion must be read against the 14 November 2025 amendment.
• R. K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794. Supreme Court. Information relating to service career of a public servant, including promotions, transfers, and disciplinary actions, is personal information under Section 8(1)(j).
• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481. Supreme Court (Constitution Bench). The Office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under Section 2(h). Judges' personal assets and declarations are amenable to the Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(e) tests, applied case by case with Section 8(2) balancing. The leading post-2019 authority synthesising fiduciary and personal-information jurisprudence.
• Madras High Court on public servants' assets (2024). Section 8(1)(j) applied to assets of public servants; public interest in disclosure weighed on a case-by-case basis under Section 8(2).

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (cited above) and the Jayantilal Mistry line establish that Section 8(2) requires a balancing of the public interest in disclosure against the harm to protected interests. The override operates notwithstanding any clause of Section 8(1). After the 14 November 2025 amendment, Section 8(2) is the sole route for a public interest override in personal-information matters.

• Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, Delhi High Court (2010). Section 11 requires the Public Information Officer to issue a notice to the third party within five days and take a decision within forty days. The third-party objection is not by itself a ground of refusal.

• Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1. Supreme Court. Section 18 complaint and Section 19 appeal are distinct jurisdictions. Section 18 does not give the Commission an appellate power to direct disclosure; that lies under Section 19. A practitioner must pick the right route.
• Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CIC Full Bench, 2009). Scope of Section 6(1) “concerned public authority” and Section 6(3) transfer. One application cannot aggregate information held by many public authorities.
• Nihar Ranjan Banerjee v. M. N. Ghosh (CIC, 2009). The Commission has inherent power of review in cases of procedural infirmity or error apparent on the record.

• Ministers under the Right to Information Act (Central Information Commission). The offices of Union and State Ministers are public authorities under Section 2(h). Each Ministerial office must appoint a Public Information Officer, a First Appellate Authority, and comply with Section 4 suo motu disclosure.

• Format of reply by the Public Information Officer (Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 6 October 2015). The prescribed minimum content of every reply.
• Appearance of an Advocate or non-Advocate before the Commission (Punjab State Information Commission, Full Bench). A non-Advocate may appear on behalf of an information-seeker with the Commission's authorisation.

• Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds case), (2024) 5 SCC 1. Supreme Court (Constitution Bench). The Electoral Bond Scheme held unconstitutional in part; information on donors and recipients directed to be disclosed. The reasoning on the citizen's right to know about political funding extends the Article 19(1)(a) line from Raj Narain and PUCL.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text. With amendment overlays at every amended section.
• Decoded. Plain-language walkthrough of each section of the Act.
• Explanations. Concept-wise notes on the terms and provisions of the Act.
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025. The post-14-November-2025 drafting note.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005).
2. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019).
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
4. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 14 November 2025.
5. Citations to Supreme Court, High Court, and Information Commission decisions as given against each entry.

Last reviewed on: 19 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.

• Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses RTI ruling (December 2024) — direction that PhD theses at publicly-funded universities are disclosable under the RTI Act subject to narrow Section 8(1)(j) carve-outs. See practitioner analysis.