Section 8(1)(c) RTI Act: Breach of Parliamentary Privilege

Section 8(1)© of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. The exemption protects parliamentary deliberation, committee working papers under examination, and un-laid answers. It does not protect everything sent to Parliament.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Covers — records whose disclosure would breach privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.
• Typical — draft committee reports under examination, privilege-matter notings, un-laid question-answers.
• Not covered — papers already laid on the Table; they are public.
• Narrow — general “sensitive” labelling by a department does not convert a record into §8(1)©.
• Override — §8(2) public-interest may disclose post-laying; usually privilege ceases once the matter is concluded.

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >© information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

• Raj Narain v. State of UP (SC 1975 (cited)) — Parliamentary privilege distinguished from executive confidentiality.
• CIC v. Secretariat of Parliament (CIC 2012) — Laid papers are public; un-laid committee working papers are §8(1)©.
• Karnataka Legislative Assembly v. KIC (Karnataka HC 2016) — Assembly Secretariat is §2(h); but §8(1)© applies to privilege-phase records.

Browse the full case-law database — 310+ rulings for more.

1. Locate the record and determine whether §8(1)© even plausibly applies.
2. Record specific reasons in writing linking the record to the statutory harm head.
3. Check §8(2) public-interest override and record the balancing.
4. Sever under §10 where non-exempt portions can be released.
5. Issue §11 notice if a third party's information is involved.
6. State the appeal route — 30-day First Appeal under §19(1) to the FAA.

• Blanket invocation without reasoned harm analysis — fails First Appeal review.
• Skipping §8(2) — public interest must be examined even on denial.
• Ignoring §10 severability — PIO must sever and release the non-exempt part.
• Generic labels (“sensitive”, “confidential”) — not a substitute for a specific §8(1)© finding.
• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. Is everything sent to Parliament §8(1)©?

No. Only records whose disclosure would breach privilege. Laid papers are public.

Q2. What about State Legislature records?

Same treatment applies to State Assemblies under §8(1)©.

Q3. Does the exemption end when the session ends?

It ends when the privilege attachment ends — typically on laying or conclusion of the proceeding.

Q4. Can the PIO refuse an RTI on the basis of a “possible” privilege motion?

No. Speculative privilege claims are not §8(1)©; there must be an actual privilege-phase record.

Q5. Does §8(2) public interest apply?

Yes but is rarely operative since privilege typically lapses on its own through laying, and subsequent §8(1)(i) may still apply.

• Sibling exemption frameworks: §8(1)(a) · §8(1)(b) · §8(1)(c) · §8(1)(d) · §8(1)(e) · §8(1)(f) · §8(1)(g) · §8(1)(h) · §8(1)(i) · §8(1)(j)
• Procedure: §11 — Third Party procedure · PIO reply templates.
• Appeal review: FAA speaking-order guide.
• Full Act text: Section 8 of the RTI Act · Full Act with DPDP 2025 overlay.
• Landmark rulings: 310+ curated RTI cases.

• PIO / FAA Knowledge Base (hub)
• All 10 grounds for RTI rejection
• Appellate review checklist
• RTI Glossary — 40 essential terms

• Right to Information Act, 2005 — §8(1)©, §8(2), §10, §11.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3), notified effective 14 November 2025.
• Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited above.
• CIC and State Information Commission decisions as indexed in our case-law database.

Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.