Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CIC Section 11 third party notice timeline 2011,RTI third party procedure mandatory CIC,Section 11 RTI Act third party notice failure,CIC third party disclosure RTI 2011,RTI Section 11 time limit India)&metatag-description=(CIC 2011: §11 third-party notice is mandatory before disclosing information about a named private entity. Failure to follow the procedure vitiates the disclosure order. Citizen guide.)}}
+====== Third-Party Notice Is Mandatory — CIC Section 11 Ruling 2011 ======
+{{ :social:auto:case-law-cic-2011-section11-timeline.png?direct&1200 |Third-Party Notice Is Mandatory — CIC Section 11 Ruling 2011 — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Quick Reply:** CIC 2011: §11 third-party notice is mandatory before disclosing information about a named private entity. Failure to follow the procedure vitiates the disclosure order. Citizen guide.
+</WRAP>
+**The CIC held in 2011 that the procedure under §11 of the RTI Act — issuing written notice to a named third party before disclosing information that concerns them — is mandatory, not discretionary. A disclosure order passed without following §11 is procedurally defective and can be set aside.**
+This ruling protects both the citizen applying for information (who needs a properly defended order) and the third party (who has a right to be heard).
+===== Facts =====
+An RTI applicant sought copies of a private company's project proposal and correspondence with a Ministry. The Ministry CPIO disclosed the documents without issuing a §11 notice to the private company. The company challenged the disclosure before the CIC, arguing that it had a right to be heard before its confidential commercial documents were shared.
+===== What the CIC held =====
+The CIC held: (1) §11(1) requires the CPIO to issue a written notice to a third party within 5 days of receiving an RTI application that requests information "relating to or supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party"; (2) the third party has 10 days to make a written submission on whether the information should be disclosed; (3) failure to follow this procedure vitiates the disclosure — the CPIO cannot pre-empt a third party's right to be heard; (4) where the §11 procedure is not followed, the aggrieved third party can apply to the CIC to recall the disclosure order.
+===== Operative paragraph =====
+> "The procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act is mandatory. It is not open to the CPIO to by-pass the third-party notice requirement on the ground that the information does not, in their view, merit confidential treatment. That question is precisely what the Section 11 procedure is designed to answer. An order directing disclosure passed without compliance with Section 11 is procedurally infirm and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The CPIO must issue notice, receive the third party's objections, and pass a reasoned order after considering them."
+>
+> — CIC order in third-party §11 matter, 2011
+===== How this helps your appeal =====
+  * If you sought information about a private company, contractor, or NGO and the CPIO refused on the ground that §11 notice is pending — that is a valid procedural reason, not a substantive refusal. The clock for disclosure starts only after the §11 process concludes.
+  * If a company seeks to block your RTI by filing a §11 objection, the PIO must pass a reasoned written order: does the third party's commercial interest outweigh the public interest in disclosure?
+  * A vague §11 objection ("our data is confidential") without specifying the specific harm is not sufficient — the CPIO must be persuaded. Argue the §8(1) proviso (larger public interest) in your representation to the CPIO.
+  * If the CPIO ignores your §11 objection and discloses your confidential data without notice, you can file a complaint under §18 or a writ petition — cite this 2011 CIC ruling.
+  * The total §11 timeline is: Day 1-5 notice issued, Day 5-15 third party responds, Day 40 CPIO passes final order (within 40 days of original RTI application per §11(3)).
+===== Related sections of the RTI Act =====
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section11|§11 — Third-party information procedure]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section8d|§8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence exemption]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section19|§19 — Appeal against §11 order]]
+===== FAQ =====
+==== Does §11 apply to all third-party information or only confidential data? ====
+Section 11(1) triggers when the CPIO proposes to disclose information "relating to or supplied by a third party and treated as confidential by that third party." If the third party never marked it confidential, §11 may not technically apply — but best practice is to issue notice anyway for any information that names or concerns a private entity.
+==== What if the third party does not respond within 10 days? ====
+The CPIO proceeds to make a disclosure decision. Silence does not automatically mean "disclose" — the CPIO must still assess whether any §8 exemption applies. But non-response means the third party waives its right to make further objection at the CIC stage.
+==== Can I challenge a §11 notice as the original RTI applicant? ====
+Yes. If the CPIO uses the §11 process as a delay tactic to avoid disclosure for well beyond 40 days, you can file a second appeal before the CIC for deemed refusal. The §11 process has a 40-day outer deadline from the date of the original RTI application.
+==== Does §11 apply to government employees' service records? ====
+Government employees' service records are usually information held by the employer (the public authority) — not "supplied by a third party." §11 is typically relevant for private companies, contractors, and individuals who have submitted data to the government in a private capacity.
+**Verified source:** CIC order on §11 third-party notice procedure (2011) · RTI Act §11(1)–(3)
+{{tag>cic third party notice mandatory section ruling}}