Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CIC file notings suo motu disclosure RTI 2006,Section 4(1)(b) proactive disclosure file notings,RTI file notings exemption India,CIC Full Bench file notings 2006,RTI internal deliberation notes disclosure)&metatag-title=(CIC 2006 File Notings Public Records RTI India)&metatag-description=(CIC Full Bench 2006: file notings are information and must be proactively disclosed under §4 1 b. They are not exempt merely as internal deliberation. Citizen guide.)}}
+====== File Notings Are Public Records — CIC Full Bench 2006 ======
+{{ :social:auto:case-law-cic-2008-file-notings-suo-motu.png?direct&1200 |File Notings Are Public Records — CIC Full Bench 2006 — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Quick Reply:** CIC Full Bench 2006: file notings are information and must be proactively disclosed under §4 1 b. They are not exempt merely as internal deliberation. Citizen guide.
+</WRAP>
+**The CIC Full Bench held in 2006 that file notings — the internal notes, remarks, and minutes recorded by officers on official files — are "information" under §2(f) of the RTI Act and must be disclosed under §4(1)(b)(xii) when they relate to administrative or quasi-judicial decisions. They are not automatically exempt as internal deliberation.**
+This ruling overturned the government's attempt to carve out file notings from the RTI Act's ambit entirely.
+===== Facts =====
+The Union Government, through a proposed amendment to the RTI Act in 2006, sought to exempt "file notings" from the definition of "information." Before the amendment could be enacted, multiple RTI applicants had already received conflicting responses — some PIOs disclosed file notings, others refused on the ground that they were protected internal communications.
+The CIC Full Bench took up the issue suo motu and issued a clarificatory order to resolve the inconsistency across departments.
+===== What the CIC held =====
+The CIC held: (1) file notings are "information" under §2(f) — they are material in any form including records, documents, opinions, and memos; (2) file notings relating to decisions on administrative or quasi-judicial matters — land acquisition, tender awards, scheme approvals — must be proactively published under §4(1)(b)(xii); (3) the exemption under §8(1)(i) (Cabinet notes and deliberations) applies narrowly to Cabinet-level decisions and does not cover routine departmental file movement; (4) the proposed legislative carve-out was constitutionally suspect as it would undermine the RTI Act's transparency mandate.
+The proposed amendment was eventually dropped following public opposition, in part galvanised by this CIC order.
+===== Operative paragraph =====
+> "File notings, being opinions and recommendations recorded by government servants in the course of their official duties, fall squarely within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A public authority cannot withhold file notings relating to decisions it has made merely because those notings reflect internal deliberation. Proactive disclosure of such notings under Section 4(1)(b)(xii) is mandatory. The exemption under Section 8(1)(i) applies only to Cabinet deliberations at the highest level and cannot be extended to routine departmental file processing."
+>
+> — CIC Full Bench suo motu order on file notings, 2006
+===== How this helps your appeal =====
+  * Ask specifically for "file notings, office memoranda, and inter-departmental correspondence" relating to your subject — phrase the RTI this way and the PIO cannot refuse on the ground that notings are exempt.
+  * §8(1)(i) only protects Cabinet notes and Council of Ministers deliberations — it does not protect a Joint Secretary's noting on a pending application, a district collector's file movement, or a PIO's own noting rejecting a tender.
+  * If the PIO says "file notings are not covered by RTI," cite this 2006 CIC order plus the fact that the proposed legislative exclusion was rejected.
+  * Proactive disclosure duty: public authorities must publish §4(1)(b)(xii) "the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and beneficiaries" — file notings showing how decisions were made are part of this.
+  * For decisions affecting you directly (property, tender, licence, benefit), always request the "complete noting sheet" of the relevant file along with final orders.
+===== Related sections of the RTI Act =====
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section2f|§2(f) — Definition of information]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section4|§4(1)(b) — Proactive disclosure obligations]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section8i|§8(1)(i) — Cabinet deliberations exemption]]
+===== FAQ =====
+==== Can I get file notings for a pending application (e.g., mutation, licence)? ====
+Yes. In fact, getting the noting sheet of a pending file is one of the most effective ways to unblock a stalled application — you can see exactly at which desk it is stuck and who recommended what. File the RTI, get the noting, then write to the officer responsible.
+==== Are drafts and rough notes also "information"? ====
+Generally yes — "information" includes any material in any form. But the CIC and courts have distinguished between finalised notings (on the official file) and rough/scratch working notes that never entered the official record. If the noting is on the official file, it is "information."
+==== Does the §8(1)(i) exemption cover minutes of Board meetings of PSUs? ====
+No. §8(1)(i) applies only to deliberations of the Council of Ministers and Cabinet — not to minutes of PSU boards, regulatory authorities, or statutory committees. Those minutes are disclosable unless another §8 exemption applies.
+==== Can the government still amend the RTI Act to exclude file notings? ====
+Parliament can amend the Act, but any amendment restricting the right to information must survive constitutional scrutiny under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression, which includes the right to receive information). The 2006 attempt was dropped; a future attempt would face the same constitutional challenge.
+**Verified source:** CIC Full Bench suo motu order on file notings (2006) · See also [[https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=CIC+file+notings+section+4+2006|indiankanoon.org]]
+{{tag>cic file notings public records full bench}}