CIC Landmark Decisions — Citizen Guide 2026

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued over three lakh orders since October 2005. A handful of those orders permanently changed how India interprets the Right to Information Act, 2005 — and knowing them gives you a decisive edge in any RTI appeal. This index groups the ten most consequential decisions by the RTI Act section they turned on, with a one-line summary and a link to the full citizen-facing analysis.

Shortcut: use our free AI RTI Drafter to auto-cite the correct CIC decision in your RTI application.

Section 8(1)(a) — National Security

Case Year What it decided
Subhash Agarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India 2009 Judges' asset declarations are not a national-security secret; the CJI's office is a public authority.

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence

Case Year What it decided
RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (CIC Full Bench) 2015 RBI cannot hide bank inspection reports behind §8(1)(d); public interest overrides commercial confidence for banking regulators.

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

Case Year What it decided
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (CIC → SC) 2011 Examiners do not hold answer scripts in a fiduciary capacity; evaluated answer sheets must be disclosed on request.

Section 8(1)(g) — Endangering Life

Case Year What it decided
CIC on Whistleblower Identity Protection 2019 2019 Informant identity inside a vigilance complaint is protected under §8(1)(g); disclosure can endanger the complainant's life and safety.

Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information

Case Year What it decided
Girish Deshpande v. CIC (SC 2013) 2013 Personal service records and ACRs of a third-party officer are exempt under §8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is established.

Section 7 — Timelines

Case Year What it decided
Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, MHA 2008 2008 Silence beyond 30 days under §7(1) is deemed refusal; penalty must be imposed for each day of delay beyond the statutory limit.

Section 19 — Appeals

Case Year What it decided
Subhash Chandra Agarwal — Political Parties (CIC Full Bench 2013) 2013 Six national political parties are public authorities under §2(h); the second-appeal route under §19 applies to them.

Section 20 — Penalties

Case Year What it decided
Sukhdev v. SP Karnal (CIC 2016) 2016 Maximum ₹25,000 penalty is mandatory where the PIO's delay was wilful; “insufficient reason” alone triggers §20(1).

Section 4 — Suo Motu Disclosure

Case Year What it decided
File Notings as Public Records — CIC Full Bench 2006 2006 File notings are “information” and must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b); they are not exempt merely because they record internal deliberation.

Section 11 — Third-Party Notice

Case Year What it decided
Third-Party Notice Timeline — CIC 2011 2011 The §11 third-party notice procedure is mandatory before disclosing information that concerns a named private entity; failure vitiates the order.

About this database

Each page in this section follows a citizen-first format: a plain-English direct answer, the verbatim operative paragraph, and practical guidance on how to use the ruling in your own RTI or appeal. The corpus will expand with 20 more decisions in the next batch — covering Section 6(3) transfer rules, Section 4(1)(d) reasons for decisions, and key High Court rulings on CIC jurisdiction.

Related tools:

Reader signal

Was this article useful?

Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.

- views