The CIC Annual Report 2024-25 confirms what activists have long suspected: police departments are the single largest invokers of §8 exemptions — accounting for ~22% of all rejections.

• §8(1)(g) — informant safety: 42% of police rejections.
• §8(1)(h) — investigation interference: 31%.
• §8(1)(j) — third-party privacy: 18%.
• §24 — schedule-listed agency: 9%.

• Maharashtra Police — top rejecter; ~5,400 rejections in 2024-25.
• Delhi Police — ~3,800.
• UP Police — ~3,200.
• Karnataka Police — relatively low rejecter.

1. “Investigation pending” indefinitely — counter with: file §156(3) magistrate complaint and force update.
2. “Informant identity” — RTI for closed/disposed matters; identity protection lapses.
3. “Third-party” — frame ask for anonymised institutional data instead.

• Lalita Kumari (2014) + Bhagwant Singh (1985) + Jiju Lukose (2014) trilogy is winning FIR-disclosure appeals.
• D.K. Basu (1997) for arrest-records disclosures.
• NCRB statistics — public, can be used to triangulate police data.

1. File initial RTI for statistical/aggregate data (FIR types, conviction rates) — usually disclosable.
2. For specific cases, await closure/disposal, then file with closure reference.
3. For misconduct, file directly to SP/DGP with cc to State Human Rights Commission.

1. CIC Annual Report 2024-25.
2. NCRB Crime in India 2024.
3. Lalita Kumari (2014); D.K. Basu (1997).

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.