Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(landmark rti supreme court rulings 2026,supreme court rti cases pio,top rti rulings india,rti act landmark cases,aditya bandopadhyay thalappalam girish deshpande,rti supreme court precedents,pio must know rti cases)&metatag-description=(Ten Supreme Court rulings every PIO and First Appellate Authority must know — from Aditya Bandopadhyay to Puttaswamy to the 2024 Electoral Bonds decision. Editorial summaries with the ratio decidendi, the exact Section anchored, and the drafting takeaway for PIO orders.)}}
+====== 10 Supreme Court rulings every PIO and FAA must know (2026 edition) ======
+<WRAP center round tip 95%>
+**Practice this in 30 seconds.** Use our free **[[:tools:rti-assistant|RTI Assistant]]** — AI-driven drafting, First Appeal, Second Appeal in one place.
+</WRAP>
+**Ten Supreme Court decisions anchor the working PIO's daily toolkit — from Aditya Bandopadhyay's narrowing of the Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption to the 2024 Electoral Bonds judgment's reaffirmation of the citizen's right to know political funding. A PIO or FAA who can cite these from memory drafts a reasoned order that survives First Appeal and the Commission. Each ruling below carries its citation, the Section it turns on, and the practical drafting takeaway.**
+{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+===== Why these ten =====
+Of the several hundred Supreme Court decisions touching on the Right to Information Act, **these ten are the ones most likely to be cited** in a Section 7(8)(i) reasoned rejection, a Section 19 speaking order, or a writ-proofing exercise before the High Court. They also form the backbone of the [[:cpd:module-11|CPD course's case-law module]].
+===== 1. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — narrowed Section 8(1)(e) =====
+^ **Citation** | (2011) 8 SCC 497 |
+^ **Section** | §8(1)(e) — fiduciary relationship |
+^ **Bench** | R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik |
+^ **Date** | 9 August 2011 |
+**What it held.** Evaluated answer-sheets held by an examining body are "information" under Section 2(f). The relationship between an examining body and the examinee is **not a fiduciary relationship** in the Section 8(1)(e) sense. Answer sheets are therefore accessible under RTI on payment of copy fees.
+**The drafting takeaway.** Section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked reflexively against any "in-confidence" claim. The PIO must demonstrate that a **genuine trust-and-fiduciary-duty relationship** exists. For examination bodies, the test has been drawn narrowly: question-paper preparation and moderation policies may remain protected (//ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//), but **evaluated scripts are disclosable**.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 2. Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) — the §2(h) test =====
+^ **Citation** | (2013) 16 SCC 82 |
+^ **Section** | §2(h) — "public authority" |
+^ **Bench** | K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri |
+^ **Date** | 7 October 2013 |
+**What it held.** A body is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) only if it is **(a) owned or controlled by the government OR (b) substantially financed by the government**. "Substantial" means **significant in character** — not token grants. Cooperative societies registered under State law are not automatically public authorities.
+**The drafting takeaway.** When a PIO (or the complainant) argues that an NGO, trust, or cooperative is / is not covered, apply the two-step test. The percentage of government financing relative to total operating budget, the nature of State control over appointments, and the presence of government nominees on the governing body are all relevant.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 3. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012) — service records as personal info =====
+^ **Citation** | (2013) 1 SCC 212 |
+^ **Section** | §8(1)(j) — personal information |
+^ **Bench** | K.S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra |
+^ **Date** | 3 October 2012 |
+**What it held.** Details of a public servant's service career — memos, show-cause notices, transfer orders, assets, disciplinary action — are **primarily personal information** under Section 8(1)(j). Disclosure has no automatic nexus with public activity or interest.
+**The drafting takeaway.** After the 14-November-2025 DPDP amendment to §8(1)(j), this proposition is **reinforced** — the larger-public-interest override has moved to §8(2) and now requires explicit written balancing. For routine RTIs seeking another officer's leave / transfer / APAR data, this is the controlling authority.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 4. RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015) — regulator is not a fiduciary =====
+^ **Citation** | (2016) 3 SCC 525 |
+^ **Section** | §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) |
+^ **Bench** | M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan |
+^ **Date** | 16 December 2015 |
+**What it held.** RBI is **not in a fiduciary relationship** with the banks it regulates. RBI's statutory duty is to the public, not to the regulated entity. Inspection reports and regulatory findings are disclosable under RTI.
+**The drafting takeaway.** This ruling extends to every statutory regulator — SEBI, IRDAI, TRAI, CCI, CERC. A PIO cannot treat regulator-to-regulated-entity information as fiduciary; §8(1)(e) does not apply. Specific commercial-confidence carve-outs under §8(1)(d) remain available only for trade secrets and pricing methodology, not compliance findings.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — privacy as a fundamental right =====
+^ **Citation** | (2017) 10 SCC 1 |
+^ **Bench** | 9-judge Constitution Bench |
+^ **Date** | 24 August 2017 |
+**What it held.** The right to privacy is intrinsic to Articles 14, 19 and 21. Any restriction on privacy must satisfy the **four-prong proportionality test** — legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, balance between the right and the aim.
+**The drafting takeaway.** This is the constitutional foundation on which §8(1)(j) and the post-DPDP 2025 framework rest. When applying §8(2) public-interest balancing, the PIO or FAA is effectively performing a proportionality analysis — the rigour Puttaswamy demands.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 6. CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) — CJI office under RTI =====
+^ **Citation** | (2020) 5 SCC 481 |
+^ **Bench** | 5-judge Constitution Bench |
+^ **Date** | 13 November 2019 |
+**What it held.** The office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under §2(h). Personal information of judges — including asset declarations and collegium deliberations — is tested under §8(1)(j) with public-interest balancing.
+**The drafting takeaway.** No institution is beyond RTI's reach by virtue of being judicial. Judicial officers' service and disciplinary records are still protected as personal information; **collegium resolutions once announced** are disclosable; internal deliberations remain protected.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 7. ADR v. Union of India — Electoral Bonds (2024) =====
+^ **Citation** | 2024 INSC 113 |
+^ **Bench** | 5-judge Constitution Bench |
+^ **Date** | 15 February 2024 |
+**What it held.** The Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018 infringes the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. **Anonymity in political funding is not a legitimate State aim.** Donor, amount, and recipient data must be disclosed.
+**The drafting takeaway.** RTI is grounded in Article 19(1)(a); the Electoral Bonds judgment reaffirms this. For political-funding-adjacent RTIs post-February 2024, the defensive posture has shifted: PIOs holding donor/recipient data cannot invoke blanket §8(1)(d) commercial confidence as they once did.
+→ **[[:important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024|Full editorial summary]]**
+===== 8. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (2013) — cabinet papers post-decision =====
+^ **Citation** | (2013) 14 SCC 794 |
+^ **Section** | §8(1)(i) |
+^ **Bench** | Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra |
+^ **Date** | 16 April 2013 |
+**What it held.** §8(1)(i) is **not a permanent bar**. Cabinet papers become disclosable once the matter is over and decisions are announced. ACRs / service appraisals of public servants remain protected under §8(1)(j).
+**The drafting takeaway.** A PIO facing an RTI for cabinet-note content must check the **date of decision announcement**. If the matter is "over", §8(1)(i) no longer applies; the residual question is §8(1)(j) for any personal information within. This is the rule for both Union and State Councils of Ministers.
+===== 9. Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer (2010) — judicial reasoning =====
+^ **Citation** | (2010) 2 SCC 1 |
+^ **Section** | §2(f) |
+^ **Bench** | P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan |
+^ **Date** | 4 January 2010 |
+**What it held.** The reasoning or opinion of a judicial officer is **not "information"** under §2(f). Only the final order / decision, and the materials before it, are disclosable.
+**The drafting takeaway.** When an RTI asks **"why did the officer decide as he did?"**, the PIO may decline to produce a reasoning that is not on record. Ask: is there a **written order that contains the reasons**? If yes, disclose it under §2(f). If the reasons were never written down, the RTI Act does not compel the officer to generate them retrospectively.
+===== 10. Union of India v. Namit Sharma — Review (2013) — Commission benches =====
+^ **Citation** | (2013) 10 SCC 359 |
+^ **Section** | §12, §15, §16 |
+^ **Bench** | A.K. Patnaik, A.K. Sikri |
+^ **Date** | 3 September 2013 |
+**What it held.** The 2012 Namit Sharma directive mandating judicial-membered two-person benches for every Information Commission is **relaxed**. Commissions may sit in various compositions, subject to fair procedure.
+**The drafting takeaway.** Information Commissions exercise quasi-judicial functions but are not strictly courts. Procedural fairness — notice, opportunity to be heard, speaking orders — remains mandatory (see //Anjali Bhardwaj// for the related structural obligation).
+===== Bonus — the cases you should know next =====
+Once the ten above are memory-resident, the next ten to add to your repertoire:
+  * **//Bhagat Singh v. CIC//** (Delhi HC 2007) — §8(1)(h) investigation exemption requires specific prejudice, not a blanket bar.
+  * **//Muniyappan// line** — §11 third-party procedural obligation is fatal if skipped.
+  * **//UPSC v. Angesh Kumar//** (SC 2018) — raw-score scaling methodology protected under §8(1)(e).
+  * **//Bihar PSC v. Rizwi//** (SC 2012) — interview panel identity vs. candidate marks.
+  * **//State of UP v. Raj Narain//** (SC 1975) — the foundational "right to know" decision, pre-RTI.
+  * **//Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI//** (SC 2019) — structural obligation on the government to fill Commission vacancies timely.
+  * **//Chief Information Commissioner v. Manipur//** (SC 2011) — the §18 complaint vs §19 appeal jurisdictional divide.
+  * **//SP Gupta v. UoI// (Judges' Transfer)** (SC 1981) — "disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception".
+→ All ten (and more) are searchable at **[[:cases:search|the RTI Wiki case-law database]]** (190+ rulings, filter by Section, court, year, outcome).
+===== How to cite these in a reasoned order =====
+A PIO's §7(8)(i) reasoned rejection that cites case law is materially stronger than one that does not. A compact three-line citation works:
+<code>
+. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 (as amended by Section 44(3) of the
+DPDP Act, 2023, effective 14 November 2025) protects the requested information
+as personal information. This position is anchored in //Girish Ramchandra
+Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212, where the Supreme Court held that service
+records of public servants carry no automatic nexus with public activity, and
+is reinforced by //K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI//, (2017) 10 SCC 1, which recognises
+privacy as a fundamental right. The Section 8(2) public-interest balancing
+test does not favour disclosure in this case because [state the specific
+factual reason].
+</code>
+Replace the square-bracketed text with the specific factual reason. This three-ruling-plus-facts formula will survive First and Second Appeal in the overwhelming majority of service-record RTIs.
+===== Related reading =====
+  * **[[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]** — the canonical practitioner reference
+  * **[[:faa-speaking-order-guide|FAA Speaking-Order Guide]]**
+  * **[[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework|Section 8(1)(j) framework — post-DPDP 2025]]**
+  * **[[:cases:search|Case-law search — 190+ rulings]]**
+  * **[[:cpd:module-11|CPD Module 11 — Landmark case law]]**
+===== Sources =====
+  * Supreme Court Reports (SCR), Supreme Court Cases (SCC), Supreme Court Judis database
+  * Indian Kanoon — https://indiankanoon.org
+  * RTI Wiki editorial — **[[:important-decisions:start|landmark decisions library]]**
+----
+//Posted: 22 April 2026 · Author: Shrawan Pathak, Editor RTI Wiki (25 years of RTI practice)//
+~~NOCACHE~~
+{{tag>blog case-law supreme-court pio faa landmark 2026}}

Was this helpful? — views