Get the RTI Wiki appFree on iPhone and Android.

Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022

Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022 — RTI Wiki

Quick Reply: Another dismissed CBI appeal (2 February 2022): the information sought was personal, and §8(1)(j) did the work. Read with Sharat Kohli (2021), it shows the pattern — third-party personal material in a CBI file is where RTI asks go to die. Reframe around process records or the corruption/human-rights gateway of §24.

Central Information Commission · 2022-02-02 · CIC File No. IK/9140685

Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.

Information denied under Section 8(1)(j)

Case details

Court Central Information Commission
Decided 2022-02-02
Citation CIC File No. IK/9140685
Bench CIC Single Bench
Petitioner Rajendra Singh Parihar
Respondent Cbi
RTI Act sections §8(1)
Outcome Rejected

Outcome

Appeal dismissed by the Commission

Reading the order

  • File: CIC No. IK/9140685, decided 2 February 2022 — the same Commission stream as the 2021 CBI dismissals.
  • Held: information denied under §8(1)(j) — personal information, no larger public interest shown to displace the exemption.

The pattern, and how to break it

  • The §24 + §8(1)(j) double wall: CBI's Second Schedule status first, the privacy exemption second (see Section 24 and Section 8).
  • Break it with framing: seek the complaint's progress, the closure report's existence, action-taken records — machinery facts, not personal ones.
  • Plead the gateway: for corruption allegations, the §24 proviso is the route in; say so in the application, with facts.
  • Aggregates beat individuals: counts, dates and stages of cases are not anyone's personal information.

Ratio decidendi

Information denied under Section 8(1)(j) — personal information; no public interest overriding.

Keywords

cbi

Similar cases in the corpus

FAQs

Same result as Sharat Kohli — is CBI RTI pointless?

No — it is narrow, not closed: corruption and human-rights material has the §24 gateway, and process/aggregate records are routinely supplied.

The information is about a public servant — still personal?

Service and asset particulars of public servants are a recognised disclosure zone; but investigative material about identified individuals usually gets the 8(1)(j) treatment at CBI.

What should my queries look like?

“What is the status of complaint no. X” / “Whether a closure report was filed in FIR no. Y; if so, the date and the authority that approved it” — process, dates, stages.

Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.

Editorial summary · expanded 27 August 2026; junk description rebuilt; pattern analysis and reframing guidance added.

Was this useful?
- views