S Dinesh v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023
Quick Reply: Partly allowed (29 September 2023): the personal-information part of the request stayed behind §8(1)(j), the rest was directed for disclosure. That is the Act's design working — sever the exempt, supply the rest (§10) — and at the RBI, an authority with a long disclosure tradition before the Commission. Draft your queries severable and a partial win is the default outcome.
Central Information Commission · 2023-09-29 · CIC File No. IK/179570290
Appeal partly allowed 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 | 2023-09-29 |
| Citation | CIC File No. IK/179570290 |
| Bench | CIC Single Bench |
| Petitioner | S Dinesh |
| Respondent | Reserve Bank Of India |
| RTI Act sections | §8(1) |
| Outcome | partly allowed |
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed by the Commission
Reading the order
- File: CIC No. IK/179570290, 29 September 2023 — the RBI stream of second appeals.
- Held: information denied under §8(1)(j) as to the personal component; the appeal partly allowed — the disclosable remainder directed to be supplied.
Why partly allowed is the normal good outcome
- §10 severance exists exactly for this: the record is released to the extent the exemption does not reach (see Section 10).
- Query design decides the split: ask your questions in independent, severable units — status of a file, dates, rules applied, aggregate numbers — so exempt personal details cannot sink the whole request.
- RBI context: the Commission has repeatedly pushed RBI toward disclosure of its supervisory and policy material — a line of authority summarised on our landmark decisions page. The personal-information cut remains where identified individuals' data is the subject.
Ratio decidendi
Personal information of identified individuals denied under §8(1)(j); the remaining, severable information directed for disclosure — appeal partly allowed.
Keywords
reserve, bank, of, india
Similar cases in the corpus
Related
FAQs
My whole request was refused citing the privacy exemption — is that it?
No: press severance in the first appeal — the refusal must reach only what the exemption actually covers, not the file around it.
How do I ask severable questions?
One fact per query, no compound asks: “date of the decision”, “the rule relied on”, “the number of accounts affected” — each stands or falls alone.
Does RBI disclose anything at all?
Yes — policy, circulars, supervisory findings in aggregate and much else; the Commission's RBI line of decisions is one of the strongest pro-disclosure streams.
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; severance practice and query design added.