⚖ CIC + SIC orders — weekly digest

Weekly CIC + SIC orders digest — RTI Wiki

Quick Reply: Weekly digest of recent landmark CIC and SIC orders affecting RTI practice. Updated every Monday with PIO takeaways. Last 5 weeks visible.

Updated every Monday morning. 8-12 recent CIC + SIC orders that change practice — with the PIO/applicant takeaway in one sentence. Bookmark this page; refresh every 7 days.

Weekly digest of recent landmark CIC and SIC orders affecting RTI practice. Updated every Monday with PIO takeaways. Last 5 weeks visible.

Week of 21 April 2026 — 25 April 2026

★ Major: SC narrows §8(1)(e) fiduciary scope (April 22, 2026)

Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. — Civil Appeal 04982/2026

The Supreme Court further clarified the post-Patel framework: §8(1)(e) “fiduciary relationship” cannot shield records held in regulatory capacity (RBI inspection reports, SEBI investigation files, audit reports). The fiduciary shield applies only to genuinely entrusted-trust data (e.g. legal-counsel files, doctor-patient).

PIO takeaway: stop using “fiduciary” as a catch-all for refusing regulatory records. Cite the specific entrustment relationship; if none exists, §8(1)(e) doesn't apply.

CIC: 40-day cap on §11 third-party procedure (April 23, 2026)

CIC Order DGS/A-2026/00081 — 23 April 2026

CIC reaffirmed the 40-day total cap (notice + objection + decision) on the §11 third-party procedure. PIOs cannot indefinitely extend by serial notices.

PIO takeaway: start the §11 clock on Day 5; decide by Day 40 maximum. Beyond that, disclosure is deemed allowed.

Bombay HC: FAA must mark every contention in speaking order (April 23, 2026)

Bombay HC W.P.(C) 0631/2026

Building on the 02-March-2026 ruling that FAAs must cite at least one precedent, the Bombay HC has now mandated that the FAA address EACH contention raised by the applicant — selective acknowledgement is grounds for setting aside the FAA order.

PIO takeaway: structure FAA orders as numbered points mirroring the appeal grounds. One paragraph per contention.

Karnataka HC: §24 corruption proviso applies to State vigilance bodies (April 24, 2026)

Karnataka HC W.A. 0289/2026

The §24 Schedule 2 exemption (which protects R&AW, IB, ED) has a corruption + human rights proviso. The Karnataka HC clarified this proviso also applies to State vigilance establishments — citizens can RTI corruption-related records in state anti-corruption bureaus.

PIO takeaway: a state anti-corruption bureau cannot refuse a corruption-related RTI under §24 wholesale. The proviso opens up such requests.

CIC penalty: ₹15,000 against PIO for "vexatious" misuse (April 22, 2026)

CIC Order CIC/POSTM/A-2025/00425

CIC penalised a postal department PIO ₹15,000 for repeatedly labelling RTI applications as “vexatious” without justification. CIC clarified §20 explicitly: there is NO “vexatious” exemption in the RTI Act.

PIO takeaway: never use “vexatious” as a refusal ground. Each application must be processed on its merits, even if the applicant has filed many.

Week of 14 April 2026 — 18 April 2026

Delhi HC: Aadhaar-linked subsidy records ARE disclosable in aggregate (April 16, 2026)

Delhi HC W.P.(C) 0489/2026

Aadhaar-linked subsidy distribution data, when sought in aggregate (e.g. “list of beneficiaries by district”) is NOT exempt under §8(1)(j). Individual-name disclosure still needs §11 third-party balance.

PIO takeaway: for aggregate beneficiary RTIs (especially under §4(1)(b)(xii)), disclosure is the default. Anonymise individual rows only if specifically requested.

CIC: §7(1) clock starts on PIO receipt, not departmental dispatch (April 15, 2026)

CIC Order/A-2026/00065

CIC clarified the §7(1) clock begins when the PIO physically receives the application — NOT when it's first received at the department's central registry.

PIO takeaway: if your central registry is slow to forward, that's an internal SOP problem, not a §7(1) extension. Build a 2-day internal-routing cushion.

Madras HC: Educational records of public officials disclosable (April 17, 2026)

Madras HC W.A. 0212/2026

Following the Karnataka HC precedent, Madras HC has held that educational qualifications submitted at appointment are public-activity records and disclosable under RTI.

PIO takeaway: don't refuse RTIs about a public servant's education credentials under §8(1)(j) without a specific third-party objection.

Week of 07 April 2026 — 11 April 2026

SC: Public authorities cannot self-classify records as "secret" (April 09, 2026)

Supreme Court order — Civil Appeal 04183/2026

Self-classification by an authority (marking files “Confidential” or “Secret”) does NOT trigger §8(1)(a) sovereignty exemption automatically. The exemption requires a genuine sovereignty/security nexus.

PIO takeaway: “Confidential” stamps don't override RTI. Apply the §8(1)(a) test on substance, not labels.

CIC: Penalty against FAA for skipping reasoned order (April 10, 2026)

CIC Order/A-2026/00056

A first instance of CIC imposing a §20 penalty on the FAA (not just the PIO) for issuing a non-speaking order. Earlier penalties were exclusively on PIOs.

FAA takeaway: don't rubber-stamp PIO orders. A non-speaking First Appeal order can attract personal penalty.

Subscribe + archive

  • Push notifications — enable via the 🔔 bell at top-right. Get a ping every Monday morning when this page updates.
  • WhatsApp share — bottom-right share button to forward this page.
  • Past quarters — see Q1 2026 quarterly update for a deeper dive across all modules.
📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Reader signal

Was this article useful?

Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.

- views