M2, Latest Developments, SC and HC Cases, CIC Judgments, Interpretations

Module 2 of 10. Reading time about 40 to 50 minutes. End-of-module quiz unlocks Module 3.

The RTI Act 2005 is a short statute. The way it lives, the way you must apply it at your desk, is in case law. This module takes you through the ten most consequential rulings of the last several years and the recent CIC orders that have re-shaped PIO duties. After this module you will know not just the text of section 8 and section 24, you will know how the courts have read them and where the boundary lies in 2026.

A PIO who reads only the bare Act will reject a third-party file noting under section 8(1)(j) and end up before the CIC. A PIO who reads the case law will know that the public interest override in section 8(2) demands a specific written finding, that “personal information” has been narrowed and broadened in successive judgments, and that even a properly invoked exemption needs section 10 severability. The cost of not knowing is borne by you under section 20.

Supreme Court of India, August 2011. The applicant sought certified copies of his Class 12 answer sheets from the Central Board of Secondary Education. The Board denied access, citing section 8 exemptions and the fiduciary relationship. The Supreme Court held that the answer sheets are not held in a fiduciary relationship, that the right to information includes inspection and copies under section 2(j), and that the only exemption available was where disclosure would compromise the integrity of the examination. Operative direction, evaluated answer sheets are disclosable.

As a PIO, what this means is that a fiduciary-relationship claim under section 8(1)(e) is not a default refuge. You must record a specific finding why a fiduciary relationship exists, not merely assert one. The Court read the exemption clauses strictly because the Act is a remedial statute.

Supreme Court of India, October 2013. The applicant sought the entire service record, assets, liabilities, ACR (annual confidential report), and disciplinary records of a serving public servant. The Supreme Court held that performance of an employee in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, that an ACR and details of assets and movable and immovable properties of an employee are personal information under section 8(1)(j), and that the applicant must demonstrate larger public interest for disclosure.

This judgment is often misused by PIOs as a blanket shield. As a PIO, read it carefully. The Court did not say that all service records are exempt. It said that the burden shifts to the applicant to show public interest, and that the PIO must record a reasoned finding either way. A bare invocation of Girish Deshpande is not a reasoned order.

Supreme Court of India, Constitution Bench, May 2014. Although the case is primarily about section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, paragraphs of the judgment have been relied on by the CIC to read down the CBI exclusion under section 24 of the RTI Act. The Constitution Bench struck down the requirement of prior approval to investigate senior officers, and reaffirmed that anti-corruption inquiries cannot be hidden from public scrutiny.

In practice, as a PIO of a Government department, when the request relates to a corruption allegation routed through CBI, the section 24(1) proviso applies. Section 24(1) excludes intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule from the Act, but the proviso carves out information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

Supreme Court of India, December 2015. The Reserve Bank of India had refused to disclose inspection reports of co-operative banks and lists of defaulters. The Supreme Court held that the RBI is not in a fiduciary relationship with the banks it regulates, that section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked to shield a regulator's records from the citizen, and that the public has a right to know the affairs of banks holding their money.

For a PIO in any regulator, this is binding. Inspection reports, defaulter lists, action-taken reports against regulated entities are disclosable unless a specific clause of section 8 applies on its own merits.

Supreme Court of India, February 2019. The case concerned vacancies in the CIC and State Information Commissions. The Court directed timely filling of vacancies, transparency in selection, and laid down standards. The case does not directly affect PIOs but reminds you that delays in second appeals are not the fault of the applicant. Do not rely on CIC backlog to delay your reply.

The 2023 Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal was primarily about the appointment of the Election Commissioner. Subsequent orders in 2024 reiterated the Anjali Bhardwaj directions to keep the CIC and SICs fully staffed. As a PIO, the practical takeaway remains the same. The appellate system is in motion. Your first appeal under section 19(1) is decided inside your authority, not at the CIC, so backlog at the Commission is not your shield.

Supreme Court of India, March 2020. The question was whether the High Court can frame rules that require an affidavit and a stated purpose for obtaining a certified copy of a judicial record, thus departing from the section 6(2) bar of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court rules, holding that the RTI Act applies, but where the public authority has framed rules under another statute that govern the same disclosure, those rules can apply. The Court relied on section 22 read with section 8(1)(b) and the inherent powers of the High Court on its judicial side.

The lesson for a PIO is that “we have other rules” is not automatic. The Court did not displace the RTI Act, it only allowed parallel rules where they exist and are reasonable. Do not invoke departmental rules without showing they have statutory backing and a transparent purpose.

The Aadhaar judgment by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench in 2018 (Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India) established privacy as a fundamental right and constrained the disclosure of Aadhaar-linked data. For a PIO, two practical results follow. First, applications seeking another person's Aadhaar enrolment or authentication data must be refused under section 8(1)(j) read with the Aadhaar Act 2016 section 28 and section 33, unless a court direction exists. Second, the public interest override under section 8(2) must satisfy a higher proportionality test after the privacy judgment.

The CBI was notified under section 24(2) of the RTI Act in 2011 as an intelligence and security organisation. The carve-outs in the section 24(1) proviso continue to apply, meaning information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not excluded. The CIC has, in a series of orders, directed the CBI to supply such information after consultation with the Commission as required by the second proviso. For a PIO of a Government department that has shared correspondence with CBI on a corruption complaint, the section 24 shield does not automatically extend to your records. Examine each item.

Section 11 requires the PIO to give a written notice to a third party within five days of receipt of the application if the request relates to information that has been treated as confidential by that third party. The third party then has ten days to make a representation. The PIO must consider the representation and pass a reasoned order. Recent CIC orders have emphasised that section 11 is a procedural duty, not a veto. The third party can object, but the PIO decides. If the PIO disagrees with the third party, the third party has the right to a first appeal under section 19(1) and a second appeal under section 19(2). Failure to issue a section 11 notice when required is a process error that the CIC has penalised.

Every Supreme Court ruling on the RTI Act has read the exemptions strictly and the right broadly. A PIO who tilts the other way will lose. When in doubt, lean towards disclosure with severability under section 10.

A bare citation of a section number is not a reasoned order. The CIC has set aside replies that said “exempt under section 8(1)(j)” without explaining why the information is personal, how disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion, and why the public interest override does not apply. Always write the why.

After Aditya Bandopadhyay and RBI v Jayantilal Mistry, the fiduciary-relationship clause is reserved for genuine relationships of trust, like a doctor and patient, lawyer and client, banker and customer, where information was provided in confidence for a specific purpose. A regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary. A government employee-employer relationship is not fiduciary in the section 8(1)(e) sense.

Even Second Schedule organisations must release information on corruption and human rights. As a PIO who deals with such an organisation, build a parallel register of disclosable matter.

Privacy is a fundamental right. The section 8(1)(j) test now reads, is the information personal, would disclosure cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, and does the larger public interest override the privacy interest? Each step needs a recorded finding.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 has amended section 8(1)(j) to bar disclosure of personal information without a public interest test. The amendment has been challenged before the Supreme Court and is sub judice. Until the Court rules, the safer course is to continue applying the original section 8(1)(j) along with section 8(2) public interest override, and to record both the old and the new analyses in your reply.

The CIC has, in repeated orders since 2020, held that a one-line reply of “no information is available” without an inspection of the relevant file, a search of the relevant register, or a written reference to subordinate offices, is a deemed refusal and attracts section 20 penalty. The PIO must record what was searched, where, and when.

Section 7(8)(iii) requires the PIO to communicate the particulars of the First Appellate Authority. The CIC has imposed cost on PIOs whose replies did not name the FAA, did not give a designation, and did not give an address. This is a one-line fix that prevents many appeals.

If you ask for an additional fee under section 7(3), the demand must be reasonable, must be in writing, and must mention the calculation. The CIC has set aside fee demands of large amounts without itemisation. A demand of two rupees per page is the upper limit under most rules.

File notings are information under section 2(f). They are disclosable unless a specific exemption applies. The DoPT old OM and any reliance on it has been overruled by repeated CIC orders. A PIO who refuses file notings without a specific exemption analysis is exposed under section 20.

Section 6(2) bars the PIO from seeking reasons. The CIC has held that a PIO who demands “why do you want this information” obstructs the right and may attract section 20.

Several Madras High Court orders have read section 8(1)(j) narrowly, especially in matters of public servants' service records linked to alleged misconduct. A PIO in Tamil Nadu should track these orders. The general lesson, jurisdictional High Courts may interpret the exemptions slightly differently from the Supreme Court ratio, and you must follow your jurisdictional High Court's binding view.

The Delhi High Court has held that a Second Schedule organisation cannot deny information on its administrative matters, only intelligence and security operations are excluded. As a PIO of a Second Schedule body, separate operational files from administrative files.

The Kerala High Court has held that the section 6(3) duty is not a mere forwarding duty. The PIO must read the application, identify the right authority, and transfer within five days. A blind forwarding has been treated as a section 20 default.

When a PIO sits down to draft a reply, the case-law check looks like this.

1. For each item in the application, identify the section 8 clause you are tempted to invoke.
2. Locate the controlling judgment. If section 8(1)(e), is it Aditya Bandopadhyay or RBI v Jayantilal Mistry? If section 8(1)(j), is it Girish Deshpande? If section 24, is it the Subramanian Swamy line for corruption carve-outs?
3. Apply the test from the judgment. Record the finding in one sentence.
4. Apply section 10 severability. Can you redact the exempt portion and supply the rest?
5. Apply section 8(2) public interest override. Record a finding either way.
6. Issue a reasoned order.

If you do this for every application, you will rarely face a section 20 penalty. You may still lose appeals, but you will not be personally penalised.

The case law in this module is current as of the most recent corpus on RTI Wiki. Always cross-check the latest CIC monthly bulletin and the law reports of your jurisdictional High Court before signing a reply on a high-stakes file. As a PIO, you can also flag a matter to your law officer or law department under section 5(4). Section 5(5) makes them accountable.

This module gave you the ten foundational rulings, the six interpretive themes, and the recent CIC enforcement trends. In Module 3 you will translate this knowledge into the 30-day clock, the date-of-receipt rules, and the section 6(3) transfer procedure.

For deeper reading on individual judgments, see Aditya Bandopadhyay summary, Girish Deshpande summary, and RBI v Jayantilal Mistry summary on RTI Wiki.

This module is part of the RTI Wiki PIO Certification Course. The course is a Learner Certificate programme. It is NOT accredited by any government or statutory body. The drafting exercises in Module 7 are evaluated by a Large Language Model trained on RTI Wiki content, not by human evaluators. Scores are indicative knowledge measures, not legal advice.

Now take the M2 quiz to proceed to M3.