Table of Contents
⚖ CIC + SIC orders — weekly digest
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.
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.
Related
Last updated: 25 April 2026.

