Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—cases:rk-jain-v-uoi-2013 [2026/08/26 22:15] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(section 8(1)(i), file noting, Cabinet papers, R.K. Jain, post-decisional disclosure)
 +metatag-description=(The Cabinet-papers exemption protects only Cabinet-level deliberations; routine file notings stay disclosable and post-decisional material must go public.)
 +metatag-title=(R.K. Jain v. Union of India — 2013 — RTI case law)}}
 +====== R.K. Jain v. Union of India ======
 +
 +{{ :social:auto:cases-rk-jain-v-uoi-2013.png?direct&1200 |R.K. Jain v. Union of India — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Quick Reply:** When a PIO answers "Cabinet papers" to a request for **file notings**, this is the ruling to cite. The Supreme Court read **§8(1)(i)** narrowly: it shields **Cabinet papers and records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers** — not the routine departmental noting of a Section Officer or Under Secretary. And the proviso bites the other way: once a **decision is taken and the matter is complete**, the decisions, the reasons, and the material they rested on **shall be made public**.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Supreme Court of India** · 16 April 2013 · **(2013) 14 SCC 794**
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +===== Holding =====
 +
 +File notings are not automatically Cabinet papers; post-decisional disclosure is mandated by the proviso to §8(1)(i).
 +
 +===== Ratio =====
 +
 +  * **§8(1)(i) is bounded by its words:** "cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers" — the shield belongs to **Cabinet-level deliberation**, not to every file that ever passed through a ministry.
 +  * **Routine departmental noting** — a Section Officer's or Under Secretary's noting on an ordinary file — is **administrative record**, disclosable like any other record.
 +  * **The proviso is a command, not a courtesy:** once the decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, "the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public."
 +  * Where genuine deliberative content sits next to disclosable content, **§10 severability** separates them — the exempt line is excised, the rest disclosed.
 +
 +===== Use it in your appeal =====
 +  1. Pin the PIO to the section: ask which part of the notation is claimed as a record of deliberation **of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries or other officers**, and at what level the claimed officer sits.
 +  2. If the decision is already taken, invoke the **proviso**: post-decisional material is mandatorily public.
 +  3. Offer §10: sever the deliberative lines, disclose the rest — a refusal that never considered severability is itself a ground.
 +  4. Cite **R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 794**.
 +
 +===== Section(s) applied =====
 +
 +  * [[act:section-8|Section 8(1)(i)]] and its proviso
 +  * [[act:section-10|Section 10 — severability]]
 +
 +===== Practitioner takeaway =====
 +
 +§8(1)(i) protects only Cabinet-level deliberation; routine file noting is disclosable; post-decisional material is mandatorily public.
 +
 +===== FAQs =====
 +==== Is every noting on a ministry file public after this ruling? ====
 +Not every noting — a genuinely deliberative Cabinet-level record stays exempt. But the label "file noting = Cabinet paper" is exactly what this ruling rejects.
 +==== The decision is two years old — does the proviso help? ====
 +Yes: once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, the proviso's disclosure duty operates regardless of how much time passed.
 +==== Can the PIO just refuse everything citing 8(1)(i)? ====
 +A blanket refusal that does not identify the deliberative material or consider severability under §10 is appealable on its face.
 +
 +===== Citation =====
 +
 +  * **Citation:** (2013) 14 SCC 794
 +  * **Court:** Supreme Court of India
 +  * **Date:** 2013-04-16
 +  * **Outcome:** allowed
 +  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** (2013) 14 SCC 794
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +  * [[:cases:search|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
 +  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
 +  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
 +  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|High Court RTI rulings]]
 +  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|Landmark CIC decisions]]
 +  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
 +  * [[/book|The RTI Playbook book]]
 +
 +//Last reviewed: 27 August 2026. Statutory text of 8(1)(i) and its proviso quoted precisely from the Act; appeal-use steps, severability point and FAQ added; "Citizen Guide 2026" boilerplate removed from the headline.//
 +
 +{{tag>rti case-law cases sc 2013 file-notings cabinet-papers}}