The CIC Annual Report 2024-25 shows rejection rates jumped from 3.3% (FY23) to 4.4% (FY25) — a 33% relative rise. The top reasons:

1. §8(1)(j) — personal information: 38% of rejections. Spiked after DPDP §44(3) amendment.
2. §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence: 16%.
3. §8(1)(h) — investigation: 12%.
4. §9 — third-party copyright: 8%.
5. §24 — schedule agency: 6%.

Home Ministry (police), Defence, and Finance account for 53% of rejections — agencies most invoking §8(1)(g)/(h)/(j).

• CPGRAMS parallel pressure: filing CPGRAMS the same day forces the office to respond on two parallel tracks.
• §4(1)(d) reframing: requesting reasons for the denial of a benefit under §4(1)(d) bypasses the §6 routing.
• Public-domain framing: asking for gazetted/published versions of the information avoids §8(1)(j).
• Second-appeal precedents: the CIC continues to allow appeals — citing similar successful CIC orders increases your odds.
• High Court writs (Article 226): for time-sensitive matters, citizen petitioners are bypassing CIC backlogs and going to HC.

Suo motu compliance under §4 is also up — 2,140 entities now publish substantively as per CIC monitoring (up from 1,840 in FY23). The ecosystem is bifurcating: more rejections at the §6 level, more compliance at the §4 level.

For citizens, the lesson is to front-load research on what is already published, then file precise §6 applications for the gaps.

1. Central Information Commission Annual Report 2024-25.
2. DPDP Act 2023.

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.