CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6[2] bars such inquiry. No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI;. No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI; §6(2) bars motive inquiry. ===== Case details ===== ^ Court | Central Information Commission | ^ Decided | 2019-01-01 | ^ Citation | Citation awaited | ^ Petitioner | various | ^ Respondent | various | ^ RTI Act sections | §6(2) | ^ Outcome | Guidance / other | ===== Outcome ===== CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6(2) bars such inquiry. ===== Ratio decidendi ===== The RTI Act does not provide for refusal on the ground that the applicant's filings are 'frivolous', 'vexatious' or 'abusive'. §6(2) expressly bars inquiry into motive. The sole route to refusal is a §8 carve-out. ===== Keywords ===== frivolous, vexatious, §6(2), CIC ===== Similar cases in the corpus ===== These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law. * §6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC (HC-MAD 2013) * Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line (CIC 2010) * PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014) * Departmental proceedings records — CIC (CIC 2019) * Duplicate RTI applications — CIC (CIC 2018) ===== Related ===== * All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus * All RTI cases turning on §6 * All RTI cases turning on §7 * Full case-law search * Case-Law Database — overview * PIO RTI Reply Guide * The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated

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 · last reviewed 21 April 2026.

case-law, court-cic, section-6, section-7