Module 03 — §8 exemptions and how to defeat them

RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course Module 03

Quick Reply: RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course — Module 03: §8 exemptions and how to defeat them. Defeat the most-common refusals on appeal.

Goal: Defeat the most-common refusals on appeal.

RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course — Module 03: §8 exemptions and how to defeat them. Defeat the most-common refusals on appeal.

§8(1)(d) — "Commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property"

Most-abused exemption. Defeats:

  1. Time-bound test: post-award records are NOT commercial confidence. Tender is over; the bidders' competitive interest is over.
  2. Public-interest override (§8(2)): where the contract value is large and public funds are involved, public interest demands disclosure.
  3. Severability (§10): even if part is exempt (e.g. proprietary algorithms), the rest (price, scope, dates) is disclosable.

Precedent: *Reliance Industries v. CIC* — SC narrowed §8(1)(d) to genuinely competitive information, not all 'business' records.

§8(1)(e) — "Fiduciary relationship"

Defeats:

  1. Statutory-duty test (post-March-2026 SC in Patel): records held while doing the authority's job are NOT fiduciary. Only entrusted-trust data is.
  2. Two-party test: a fiduciary relationship requires identifiable parties. Generic “public records” don't have one.
  3. Public-interest override: especially for regulator records (banks, audit firms, contractors).

Precedent: *RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2015)* — RBI cannot use §8(1)(d) or (e) to shield bank inspection reports.

§8(1)(h) — "Investigation, apprehension, prosecution"

Defeats:

  1. Named-FIR test (Kerala SIC Full Bench Jan 2026): generic “investigation” claims are insufficient; PIO must name the FIR/PE.
  2. Closed-investigation rule: once the chargesheet is filed or closure report submitted, §8(1)(h) lifts.
  3. Public-interest override: for systemic issues (Vyapam, NSE-co-location), public interest in disclosure outweighs the marginal investigation impact.

Precedent: *Khanapuram Gandaiah* — case diaries to non-parties typically refused, but with closure report disclosable.

§8(1)(j) — "Personal information"

Most cited. Defeats:

  1. Public-activity test: salary, qualifications-on-appointment, performance reviews of public servants — disclosable (Karnataka HC 9-Feb-2026).
  2. Substantial-public-interest test: even genuinely personal data is disclosable when public interest is overwhelming.
  3. Severability: name + designation + post is public; phone/personal address is not. Sever, don't refuse whole.
  4. DPDP Rules 2026 §4 interplay: data principal's consent is now a relevant factor — for living individuals, the PIO should at minimum issue §11 notice.

§24 — "Schedule 2 organisations"

R&AW, IB, ED, NIA, etc. listed in Schedule 2 are exempt EXCEPT for “corruption and human rights violations” — that exception is a goldmine.

Framing: never ask R&AW for general activity. Ask for “investigations into corruption involving R&AW personnel” or “records relating to alleged human rights violations attributed to NIA officers in [district]”.

The §24 proviso gives a 45-day reply window with CIC oversight.

✅ Quiz

Quiz available from your course dashboard.

Next

📱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