Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 2011-09-30) LPA 719/2010 with LPA 291/2011 and 292/2011 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 11. Section 11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption: a PIO cannot refuse a request outright by citing §11, but equally cannot disclose third-party confidential information without first following the §11 notice-and-hearing procedure.

Section 11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption. A PIO may neither refuse outright under §11 nor disclose third-party confidential information without following the §11 notice-and-hearing procedure.

Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with the third party. It is not a substantive exemption. The PIO cannot refuse the request outright citing §11, and must follow the consultation procedure and decide on merits. Equally, the PIO cannot disclose information that is prima facie confidential to a third party without first giving that third party notice, because §11 ensures that the principles of natural justice are complied with.

• Section 11

§11 mandates the consultation procedure. Outright refusal under §11 is invalid, and so is disclosure of third-party confidential information without notice.

• Citation: AIR 2012 Delhi 29, (2012) 183 DLT 662
• Court: Delhi High Court (Division Bench, Dipak Misra CJ, Sanjiv Khanna J)
• Date: 2011-09-30
• Outcome: appeals disposed of, §11 interpreted and the matter remitted to the CIC
• Reporter / Cause-list: LPA 719/2010, 291/2011 & 292/2011, Indian Kanoon

This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.

1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.

• CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench) — office of CJI is public authority
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency
• Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal information test
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance
• Adesh Kumar v. UoI — irrelevance is not a ground
• Full case-law database (300+)

• AI RTI Drafter
• First Appeal Builder
• Master directory of landmark RTI rulings
• RTI Act, 2005

• RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus
• PIO/FAA Knowledge Base
• 10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings
• High Court RTI rulings
• Landmark CIC decisions
• RTI Act, 2005 — full text