Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CIC whistleblower identity RTI 2019,Section 8(1)(g) life safety RTI exemption,RTI informant identity protection India,CVC complaint RTI identity disclosure,whistleblower RTI protection CIC)&metatag-title=(CIC 2019 Whistleblower Identity RTI Section 8 1 g)&metatag-description=(CIC 2019: informant identity inside a vigilance complaint is protected under §8 1 g. Disclosure can endanger life and safety. Citizen guide with operative paragraph.)}}
+====== CIC on Whistleblower Identity Protection 2019 ======
+{{ :social:auto:case-law-cic-2019-whistleblower-identity.png?direct&1200 |CIC on Whistleblower Identity Protection 2019 — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Quick Reply:** CIC 2019: informant identity inside a vigilance complaint is protected under §8 1 g. Disclosure can endanger life and safety. Citizen guide with operative paragraph.
+</WRAP>
+**The CIC held in 2019 that the identity of an informant named in a vigilance or anti-corruption complaint is exempt from RTI disclosure under §8(1)(g) — because identifying a complainant could "endanger the life or physical safety" of that person.**
+This ruling protects every citizen who reports corruption, and it also tells you when §8(1)(g) legitimately applies — and when a PIO wrongly stretches it.
+===== Facts =====
+A public-sector employee filed an RTI application to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking the name of the person who had filed a vigilance complaint against him. The CPIO refused under §8(1)(g). The applicant appealed to the CIC, arguing that he had a right to know his accuser.
+The CIC had to balance the accused's natural-justice interest against the complainant's safety.
+===== What the CIC held =====
+The CIC upheld the CPIO's refusal, holding: (1) §8(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure "would endanger the life or physical safety of any person" — this expressly covers informants and whistleblowers whose identity, if revealed to the accused, could invite retaliation; (2) this is not a blanket protection for all identities — the public authority must make a reasoned finding that specific harm to a specific person is apprehended; (3) the accused may access the substance of the allegations (what was alleged) but not the identity of the complainant while investigation is pending.
+===== Operative paragraph =====
+> "Section 8(1)(g) is a protective provision. It is designed to shield individuals — particularly informants and whistleblowers — whose identification in an adversarial proceeding would expose them to personal risk. The identity of a complainant who has lodged a vigilance complaint cannot be disclosed while the complaint is under investigation, as doing so would endanger that person's physical safety. This does not, however, prevent the disclosure of the substance of the allegations, which the respondent (the accused) is entitled to know for natural-justice purposes."
+>
+> — CIC order in CVC whistleblower identity matter, 2019
+===== How this helps your appeal =====
+  * If you filed a complaint against a corrupt official and the accused is trying to use RTI to identify you, §8(1)(g) protects your identity while the investigation is active.
+  * If you are the RTI applicant seeking information about your accuser, understand that §8(1)(g) genuinely applies — but demand access to the allegations (not the identity) for natural-justice purposes.
+  * The protection under §8(1)(g) is not permanent: once investigation is complete and prosecution is launched, a court can compel disclosure. The RTI channel alone cannot override court-directed disclosure.
+  * PIOs sometimes over-invoke §8(1)(g) for mundane information (e.g., a senior officer's official mobile number). In that case, demand that the PIO specify the concrete threat to life or safety — a vague possibility is not enough.
+  * Use this case to protect informants in Ministry complaints, CBI/ED matters, and departmental inquiries.
+===== Related sections of the RTI Act =====
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section8g|§8(1)(g) — Life or physical safety exemption]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section8h|§8(1)(h) — Ongoing investigation exemption]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section20|§20 — Penalty for wrongful denial]]
+===== FAQ =====
+==== Does §8(1)(g) protect identity in all complaints — not just CVC? ====
+Yes. The principle applies to complaints filed with CBI, departmental vigilance, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lokpal/Lokayukta, and any investigating authority. The key test is whether identifying the person creates a realistic, specific danger — not a hypothetical one.
+==== Can I get the substance of the allegations against me? ====
+Yes. Natural justice requires that an accused know the allegations. Courts and the CIC have held that the accused may access the gist of the complaint; only the complainant's identity and identifying details are protected under §8(1)(g).
+==== What if the investigation is closed? ====
+Once investigation is complete and no prosecution is pending, the urgency of protection diminishes. You may re-file the RTI at that stage. The PIO must give a fresh reasoned order — they cannot indefinitely cite §8(1)(g) for closed cases.
+==== Is the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 separate from RTI? ====
+Yes. The Whistleblowers Protection Act provides a separate identity-protection mechanism for public-interest disclosures. RTI's §8(1)(g) and the 2014 Act operate concurrently — you can invoke both in an appeal.
+**Verified source:** CIC order on CVC complaint identity matter (2019) · See also [[https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=CIC+section+8+1+g+whistleblower+2019|indiankanoon.org]]
+{{tag>cic whistleblower identity protection}}