Differences

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

--- explanations:grounds-for-rejection [2023/04/15 10:56] – Shrawan
+++ explanations:grounds-for-rejection [2026/06/03 17:01] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Grounds for Rejection ======
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti grounds for rejection,section 8 rti exemptions,rti section 8(1),ten grounds rti,rti refusal valid grounds,rti rejection reasons,section 9 rti,section 11 rti,section 24 rti,rti exempt information,dpdp amendment rti 2025,how rti gets rejected,rti appeal section 19)&metatag-description=(All 10 valid grounds for RTI rejection under Section 8(1) — DPDP-2025 §8(1)(j) update, fiduciary, security, commercial. Counter-strategies + sample appeal grounds.)}}
-{{tag>Rejection,exemption,act}}
-{{ :explanations:rejection.jpg |}}
-It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule;  and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law,  or  prevent  the  State  from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”
+====== RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals ======
+**Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 contains ten grounds on which a Public Information Officer (PIO) may reject a request — from national security to personal information. After the DPDP 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) (notified 14 November 2025), the public-interest override moved out of clause (j) and now operates only via Section 8(2). Every rejection must cite a specific sub-clause **with factual nexus** under Section 7(8)(i) — a generic "exempt under Section 8" letter is itself an appealable defect, and Section 20 makes wrongful refusal personally penal up to Rs 25,000.**
-**Grounds of Rejection of RTI**
+{{ :social:auto:rti-hero-explanations-grounds-for-rejection.png?direct&1200 |RTI grounds for rejection guide — righttoinformation.wiki}}
-There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:
-  * The organisation is not a Public authority - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not substantially financed or controlled by the Government.
-  * What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions  which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’
-===== Some examples to explain the above: =====
-<note>‘Why have I not got a ration card?’  is not asking for information; but ‘I want the progress of my file relating to my application for a ration card’ is asking information.
+===== Key answer — read this first =====
-‘Why have I not got admission?’ is not asking for information,  whereas  ‘I want the cut-off marks at which admission was granted’ is asking for information. However, abiding by the spirit of Section 5(3), the PIO should help to reframe such queries.</note>
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
-  * The information asked for falls in the exemptions of [[act:|Section 8(1)]] or under Section 9 applies. Section 9 bars giving information which would violate private party copyright.
+An RTI request may be refused **only** on these statutory grounds:
-  * Providing extracts from the records is required to be done as per Section 2(j)(ii) unless it would require too much time. If giving the information would require too much of the resource of the Public authority, it cannot refuse to give the information.
-  * If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant.
+  * **Section 8(1)** — the ten specific exemptions in clauses (a) to (j).
+  * **Section 9** — where disclosure would infringe copyright held by someone **other than the State**.
+  * **Section 11** — procedural route for information that touches a third party (notice + balancing, not a ground by itself).
+  * **Section 24** — the intelligence and security organisations listed in the **Second Schedule**, with carve-outs for corruption and human-rights allegations.
-Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution,  in which case, the request for information, can be denied.
+**Anything else is an invalid refusal.** You have **30 days** to file a [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines|First Appeal under §19(1)]]. PIOs who refuse without a valid ground invite a **penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 under Section 20**.
-There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand,  if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the  PIO  should do this.
+**The DPDP update (14 Nov 2025):** Section 8(1)(j) was amended by §44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public-interest override that used to sit **inside** clause (j) has been removed; the override now operates **only via Section 8(2)**. See the [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
+</WRAP>
-However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a  collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.
+===== Decode your PIO refusal letter — 60-second triage =====
-===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====
+<WRAP round info 100%>
+**Open the refusal letter and look for these three things.** If any one is missing, the refusal is procedurally defective and the FAA can set it aside without even reaching the merits.
+</WRAP>
-**//(a)	information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;//**
+^ What the PIO must do ^ How to spot it in your letter ^ If missing, your move ^
+| **Cite a specific sub-clause** of §8(1) — (a) to (j) — or §9 / §11 / §24 | Look for "Section 8(1)(__)" with a letter inside the brackets. "Exempt under Section 8" alone is invalid. | Quote //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions must be narrowly read **and identified**. |
+| **Factual nexus** — explain //why this specific record// hits the cited clause | Look for one or two sentences linking the record to the harm protected by the clause. "Confidential" alone is not nexus. | Quote //Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC W.P.(C) 3114/2007 — speaking-order requirement on Section 8 invocations. |
+| **Severability analysis** under §10 | Look for "the non-exempt part is supplied at Annexure / pages __" | If the entire document is withheld without §10 severance, the refusal is appealable on §10 alone. //Principal, GMC Thiruvananthapuram v. KIC// (Kerala HC, 2019). |
+| **§8(2) public-interest balancing** (where exemption is conditional — clauses (d), (e), (j)) | Look for explicit balancing — disclosure benefit vs harm | "Public interest not satisfied" without analysis is itself a defect — //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794. |
+| **FAA address** under §7(8)(iii) | Should be at the bottom of the order with name + designation + address | Without FAA details, file the appeal addressed as "First Appellate Authority, Office of [PA]" — the office is bound to forward. |
-The PIO must explain how the disclosure of information is likely to ‘prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, or the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State  or lead to incitement of an offence’. If no specific reasoning is given to justify denial, the information must be provided.  It must be observed that the law does not exempt files or information labelled ‘confidential’ as exempt. Classification as ‘confidential’ is an internal procedure and cannot be used to deny information, since the RTI Act has exempted thisthis category.
+→ Use our **[[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker-app.html|PIO Reply Checker]]** — paste the refusal text and the tool flags wrong-clause invocations and missing severability automatically.
-----
+===== The 10 grounds at a glance =====
-**//(b)	information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure   of which may constitute contempt of court;//**
+<WRAP center round round 95%>
+| {{:icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(a)** — Sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific, economic interests, foreign relations, incitement of offence. [[#a-sovereignty-integrity-security|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:b-court.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(b)** — Information expressly forbidden by a court / tribunal, or whose disclosure would be contempt. [[#b-court-forbidden-disclosure|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(c)** — Breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. [[#c-parliamentlegislature-privilege|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(d)** — Commercial confidence, trade secrets, IP — where disclosure harms a third party's competitive position. [[#d-commercial-confidence|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(e)** — Information available in a fiduciary relationship. [[#e-fiduciary-relationship|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(f)** — Information received in confidence from a foreign government. [[#f-foreign-government-confidence|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(g)** — Endangerment of life / physical safety, or identity of a confidential source. [[#g-life-and-safety|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(h)** — Impedes investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. [[#h-investigation-and-prosecution|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(i)** — Cabinet papers and deliberations (time-bounded). [[#i-cabinet-papers|Detail →]] |
+| {{:icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?48 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}} | **§8(1)(j)** — Personal information / unwarranted invasion of privacy. **Amended 2025.** [[#j-personal-information-amended-2025|Detail →]] |
+</WRAP>
-The exemption will only apply when any matter has been specifically and expressly forbidden to be made public by a court or tribunal. Even if an issue is subjudice, the information has to be provided. This exemption will only apply if a specific order of the Court or tribunal says the particular information has been prohibited from disclosure. Such a disclosure would be contempt of court and hence barred.
+===== The PIO decision flow =====
-----
+{{ :icons:grounds:decision-flow.svg?1000 |PIO decision flow — RTI grounds for rejection }}
-**//(c)	information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach  of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//**
+The diagram is the legal order of analysis. **A ground under §8(1) is never the first gate.** A PIO must first establish that the body is a public authority and that the request is for "information" as defined; then apply §7(9) for form, not refusal; only then reach §8(1) / §9 / §24 and the §8(2) override and §10 severability.
-This will primarily apply where there is a legal stipulation to present some information like a report to Parliament or the Legislature. This provision will also apply when a specific order has been given by the Legislature to avoid disclosing some information in public domain or to prohibit some proceedings of the Parliament or Legislature from being made public.
+<WRAP center round tip 95%>
+**If you've just received a refusal letter**, skip to **[[#non-grounds-what-cannot-refuse-an-rti|non-grounds]]** and **[[#got-refused-the-30-day-appeal-path|the appeal path]]** below.
-There is a common practice of governments appointing Commissions of Inquiry and often not making the reports public. Since the report has not been placed before Parliament can it be given in response to an RTI application?
+**If you're a PIO or FAA**, use the per-clause detail below — each has statutory text, plain-English meaning, case citations, and a PIO takeaway.
+</WRAP>
-As per Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, “The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State the report, if any, of the commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a Memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of  the  report by the commission to the appropriate Government.”
+===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====
-If it has not been placed within six months before the Parliament, or State Legislature, the breach of privilege has already occurred since the government has not abided by the provision of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It cannot then be claimed that giving the report to the applicant will cause a breach of privilege since it has already been breached by the holder of the report.
+==== Gate 1 — Is the body a public authority? ====
-Another important point which must be noted is that if some information is denied to Legislature, this exemption does not say it should not be given to a citizen. There is an additional view at this juncture.
+If the body is not a [[:explanations:public-authority|public authority]] under §2(h), the RTI Act does not apply. A cooperative society, private company, or trust not [[:explanations:substantially-financed|substantially financed]] or controlled by the government is outside scope.
-----
+**Authority.** //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82 — substantial-financing test. See also [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings|Kerala HC RTI rulings]] for the HC-level application.
-**//(d)	information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of  which  would  harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//**
+==== Gate 2 — Is the request for "information" as defined? ====
+Section 2(f) defines "information" as material in any form **that exists on record**. The PIO is not obliged to answer questions, interpret law, or create fresh analysis.
-To qualify for this exemption, it must be established that it is  ‘commercial confidence,  trade secret or intellectual property’. Most importantly, it must be shown that the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’. This would mean if particular information is given by the ‘third party’ which can be identified as a trade secret or commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm its competitive position, then such information could be denied to the applicant. This section does not envisage denial of information such as tender bids, specifications or guarantees are given by bidders to the public authorities. The PIO must examine and ensure whether information denied qualifies this test of damage to third parties likely to be caused by disclosure.
+| **Rejected** | **Re-framed — answerable** |
+| "Why have I not got a ration card?" | "Current status of my ration-card application file and the next step pending with the officer." |
+| "Why have I not got admission?" | "Category-wise cut-off and last-allotted rank for this programme." |
+| "Why was my bill so high?" | "Meter-reading log for the last 24 months and tariff slab applied to each cycle." |
-As an example, if a Company is negotiating with some other customers for some orders and discloses this to the Public authority, it may be claimed that it is information given in commercial confidence and disclosing this information could damage its competitive position. Similarly, if a formula/ formulation is disclosed by a company, its disclosure could be exempted since disclosure could harm its competitive position. If there is no possibility of competition, the exemption cannot be claimed under this clause.
+**This is the single biggest drafting fix.** The Act's Section 5(3) even casts a positive duty on the PIO to help reframe such queries. The full method, with 20+ examples, is at **[[:why-rti-gets-rejected|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]]**.
-----
+==== Gate 3 — §7(9) governs form, not refusal ====
+Section 7(9) lets the PIO change the **form** in which information is provided — not refuse it. Where collation would "disproportionately divert resources," the PIO may offer **inspection + copies of identified pages**. Outright refusal under §7(9) is impermissible.
-**//(e)	information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//**
+See [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]] and [[:act:section-7|Section 7 — reply deadline and form]].
+===== Section 8(1) — the ten grounds =====
-The fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of   the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty  to  act  or  give  advice  to  another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or
+==== 8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security ====
-(4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer.”34
+{{:icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
-The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.
-Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the information is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in a discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license or passport, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In such a situation, it cannot be claimed that the information has been given in a fiduciary relationship.
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.//
+</WRAP>
-Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.
+**Plain English.** For genuine national-security or strategic-harm cases — not for documents stamped "Confidential."
-----
+**Key caveat.** An internal "Secret" or "Confidential" marking is **not** a ground. The PIO must show *specific* harm disclosure would cause. A blanket citation of §8(1)(a) without a harm-test fails on appeal.
-**//(f)	information received in confidence from foreign government;//**
+**Case law.**
+  * //S.P. Gupta v. UoI//, AIR 1982 SC 149 — classified files do not enjoy automatic immunity; the harm-test applies.
-It is likely that this provision could be used to refuse most information provided by a foreign Government unless it has been released in the Public domain. Effectively,  this means that most information received from a foreign government is unlikely to be given. This is the only provision where the mere claim of information having been received in confidence has been given exemption in this law.
+**PIO takeaway.** Record the specific item + how it maps to sovereignty / security / strategic / scientific / economic interest or foreign relations. Blanket refusal fails.
-----
+==== 8(1)(b) — Court-forbidden disclosure ====
-**//(g)	information, the disclosure of which would  endanger  the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source   of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;//**
+{{:icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
-The danger to life or physical safety must be a reasonable probability, not a mere imagination. This clause would be invoked when somebody has given information about a wrongdoing or acted as a whistleblower, and disclosure of his identity would endanger him. However, it should entail a situation where some threat to the source must be a reasonable probability.  This cannot be used to deny information about examiners,  names of selectors or interviewers, or remarks by superior officers against their juniors. This would be the result of a hyperactive apprehension rather than a real threat. There is an additional view at this juncture.
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.//
+</WRAP>
-----
+**Plain English.** Applies **only** when a specific court / tribunal order bars publication. "Matter is sub-judice" by itself is not enough.
-**//(h)	information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//**
+**Common PIO error.** Citing "case pending in court" as a §8(1)(b) ground. Sub-judice alone is insufficient.
+**Case law.**
-Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
+  * //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions to be narrowly read.
-  - The investigation is not complete, and it can be shown that releasing the information could impede the process of investigation. This provision does not say that when an investigation is ongoing, information regarding it should not be provided. Hence, the PIO must consider whether there is a reasonable probability of the investigation being impeded if the information is provided.  Similarly,  when an investigation report is already submitted, it cannot be claimed that the process of investigation will be impeded.  After this, only if there is any probability of somebody being apprehended or prosecuted, then it has to be established that the apprehension or prosecution will be impeded.
-  - If it is shown and established that releasing the information will result in a situation which will impede apprehending the charged persons.
-  - Though the investigation and apprehension of offenders may be over, releasing the information would impede the process of prosecuting the offenders. If an investigation is over and no offender is likely to be apprehended or prosecuted, the information cannot be withheld.36 Also, the mere fact that release of some information from the records may lead to a weakening of the prosecution case cannot be advanced as a reason to deny information, since this would  imply that the truth on records is not being revealed.
-----
+==== 8(1)(c) — Parliament / Legislature privilege ====
-**(i)	cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:**//Italic Text//
+{{:icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.//
+</WRAP>
-This provision is often misunderstood as being a complete bar on providing information under Right to Information about cabinet papers and the cabinet deliberations. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, it places an obligation on the government to make public the material on the basis of which the decision has been taken. This means that the government must make the basis of taking the decisions public on its own. For example, once a bill is presented in Parliament or Legislature, the matter relating to the purpose of the deliberations and cabinet related file notings is clearly complete and over.
+**Plain English.** Used primarily where a statute requires information (a report) to be laid before the Legislature, or where the Legislature has specifically ordered non-disclosure.
-This provision requires that the government places before people it's deliberations and reasoning for deciding to frame a law or policy. This provision reiterates the provisions of Section 4(1):
+**A subtle point — Commission of Inquiry reports.** Under Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, a government **must** lay the report before the Legislature within 6 months. If it fails to do so, the breach of privilege has already occurred — §8(1)(c) cannot then be used to shield the report from an RTI applicant.
-(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
+==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence ====
-(d)	provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
-It ensures that the advice given to the cabinet and its deliberations would not be revealed when it is being discussed. However, once the decision to make a law or policy has been taken, the reasons and records should be put before the public. This is the true empowerment of citizens and an attempt to bring in a  participatory democracy and accountability. It is worth noting that this is the only provision in Section 8 (1), which while exempting disclosure of certain information, puts the responsibility on the government to put it in public once the decision is taken. There is an additional comment at this juncture.
+{{:icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
-----
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a [[:explanations:third-party|third party]], unless the [[:explanations:competent-authority|competent authority]] is satisfied that larger [[:explanations:public-interest|public interest]] warrants the disclosure.//
+</WRAP>
-//**(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest,   or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
+**Plain English.** All four must be satisfied: (i) the data belongs to a third party; (ii) it is trade-secret / commercial-confidence / IP; (iii) disclosure would harm competitive position; (iv) no larger public interest overrides.
-Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//
+**What is NOT commercial confidence.** Tender bid particulars, project specifications, performance guarantees by a winning bidder to a public authority are **not** automatic trade secrets. Technical evaluation minutes post-award are disclosable — the evaluation is a public-authority act. See **[[:pio-tender-contract-rti|PIO Framework — tender and contract RTI]]** and //Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2015).
-To qualify for this exemption, it must be personal information. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it suggests that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)
+**Case law.**
-(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.
-The information requested, may be denied under section 8(1)(j), under the following two circumstances –
-a)	Where the information requested is personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or
+  * //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
+  * //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — RBI's own regulatory records are disclosable; §8(1)(d) can't shield them.
-b)	Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
+==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
-If the information is personal information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public authority as a consequence of a public activity. Generally, most of the information in public records arises from public activity.
+{{:icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information available to a person in his [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship|fiduciary relationship]], unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure.//
+</WRAP>
+**Plain English.** A fiduciary relationship requires **choice + trust + benefit of the provider** — lawyer / client, doctor / patient, banker / customer, trustee / beneficiary.
+**What is NOT fiduciary.**
+  * Information given to fulfil a statutory requirement (income-tax return, passport application, job application) — no choice, no fiduciary.
+  * Employee service records held by the employer — regulatory, not fiduciary.
+  * Information the regulator holds about a regulated entity — not fiduciary.
+**Case law.**
+  * //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — evaluated answer scripts are **not** fiduciary; scores are disclosable.
+  * //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — the regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary.
+  * //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781 — examiner identity and model answers **are** fiduciary.
+**Deep dive.** [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary relationship]].
-<WRAP group>
+==== 8(1)(f) — Foreign government confidence ====
-<WRAP half column>
-Applying for a job, ration card or passport are examples of public activity. However, there may be some personal information which may be with public authorities which is not a consequence of a public activity, eg. Medical records, or transactions with a public sector bank. Similarly, a public authority may come into possession of some information during a raid or seizure which may have no relationship to any public activity.
-Even if the information has arisen by a public activity,  it could still be exempt if disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual.
+{{:icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information received in confidence from foreign government.//
 </WRAP>
-<WRAP half column>
+**Plain English.** The only clause where a mere claim of "received in confidence" triggers exemption. Most information received from a foreign government is therefore unlikely to be given unless it has already been released into the public domain.
+**PIO takeaway.** Record the foreign-government source and the confidentiality note. For post-release information, §8(1)(f) does not resurrect.
+==== 8(1)(g) — Life and safety ====
+{{:icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.//
 </WRAP>
+**Plain English.** For **whistleblowers** and confidential informants in law-enforcement — not for routine examiner names, interviewer names, or remarks by superior officers.
+**Common PIO error.** Using §8(1)(g) to shield names of examiners / evaluators / selection-committee members. That is §8(1)(e) territory at best; §8(1)(g) requires a **real and reasonable probability** of threat to life.
+==== 8(1)(h) — Investigation and prosecution ====
+{{:icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.//
 </WRAP>
-Privacy is to do with matters within a home, a  person’s body,  sexual preferences etc.  This  is  in  line  with  Article 19  (2)  which  mentions  placing  restrictions  on  Article  19
-(1)	(a) in the interest of  ‘decency or morality’.  There  is an additional view at this juncture.38 If, however, it is felt  that the information is not the result of any public activity,  or disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, before denying information it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that  the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
+**Plain English.** Information can be refused only if disclosure would genuinely impede one of: ongoing investigation, apprehension of the accused, or ongoing prosecution.
-The proviso is meant as a test which must be applied before denying information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering demands for information from citizens. Hence, when they have a doubt,  it is worthwhile for them to first consider if they would give this information to the elected representatives. They must first come to the subjective conclusion that they would not provide the information to MPs and MLAs, and record it when denying information to citizens. There is an additional view at this juncture
+**Time-bound.** §8(1)(h) does **not** mean "any case pending in court." Once the investigation report is submitted / closed, §8(1)(h) ceases to apply and fresh reasoning must be recorded for any continued exemption. //S. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal// (Calcutta HC, 2018) and //S. Muthukumarasamy v. Commissioner, Labour Dept// (Madras HC, 2018) both enforce this.
-Another perspective is that information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure would cause harm to some interest of an individual. If, however, the information can be given to the legislature it means the likely harm is not very high since what is given to legislature will be in public domain. Hence, it is necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of Section 8 (1) (j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. This must be recorded in the decision.
-It is worth noting that in the Privacy bill 2014, it was proposed that Sensitive personal  data  should  be  defined  as Personal data relating to: “(a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password,
+**The mere fact** that release may weaken the prosecution case is **not** a ground — that would be protecting untruths on the record.
-(e) banking credit and financial data (f) narco-analysis or polygraph test data, (g) sexual orientation.” This is in line with Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
+==== 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers ====
-----
+{{:icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.//
+//Provided that 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 after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over://
+</WRAP>
+**Plain English.** This is a **time-bounded** exemption — not a permanent bar. Cabinet deliberations are protected **during** decision-making. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, the government must disclose the reasons and material.
+**Authority.** //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — post-decisional disclosability of file-notings and cabinet deliberations.
+**Statutory reinforcement.** §4(1)(c) — publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies. §4(1)(d) — provide reasons for administrative / quasi-judicial decisions. These duties ripen after the cabinet decision.
+==== 8(1)(j) — Personal information [amended 2025] ====
+{{:icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round alert 90%>
+**DPDP Amendment — 14 November 2025.** Section 44(3) of the **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023** amended §8(1)(j). The Act now reads:
+>//Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.//
+**Two things have changed.** The internal "public-interest override" clause and the "information which cannot be denied to Parliament" proviso are both **removed**. The public-interest override now operates **solely through §8(2)**.
+Full legal analysis: **[[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]**. Context: [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act|Blog — DPDP Rules 2025 RTI amendment]].
+</WRAP>
+**Plain English.** Two tests for a §8(1)(j) refusal:
+  - Is the information **personal** (attributes of an individual, not an institution)?
+  - Does disclosure cause an **unwarranted invasion of privacy**, with no relationship to public activity?
+If the information is already in the public domain, or flows from a public activity (applying for a job, ration card, passport, tender), §8(1)(j) typically fails.
+**Case law.**
+  * //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records of public servants generally fall within §8(1)(j); salary / rank data is open.
+  * //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI//, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy as fundamental right; proportionality governs any intrusion.
+  * //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — subjective evaluation (ACR) is personal but subject to §8(2) public interest.
+  * //Thalappalam Cooperative Bank// (as applied) — member-level financial data carries a privacy interest even in a public authority.
+**PIO takeaway.** Post-2025, record the privacy analysis inside §8(1)(j), then separately record any §8(2) override analysis. The two are now textually and analytically distinct.
+===== Also deniable — §9, §11, §24 =====
+==== §9 — Third-party copyright ====
+{{:icons:grounds:s9-copyright.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round box 90%>
+**Statutory text.** //Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//
+</WRAP>
+**Plain English.** If the copyright belongs to someone **other than the State** — a publisher, film-maker, artist — the public authority cannot hand out copies.
+**If the copyright belongs to the State**, the information **must** be disclosed. Some state rules specify that for priced publications, the RTI fee equals the sale price — but **no State-copyrighted material can be refused on copyright grounds**.
+See [[:act:section-9|Section 9 — Copyright]].
+==== §11 — Third-party information ====
+{{:icons:grounds:s11-thirdparty.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+§11 is **procedural**, not a standalone ground. When requested information relates to a third party (a vendor, a complainant, another citizen), the PIO must:
+  - Within **5 days** of receipt, give written notice to the third party.
+  - The third party has **10 days** to represent.
+  - The PIO then decides, **within 40 days total**, recording reasoning.
+A §11 notice **skipped** is a procedural defect — the PIO order is fragile on appeal. **Skipping §11 is one of the top reasons FAA orders are set aside.**
+**Authority.** //C. Muniyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu// (Madras HC, 2013); //Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2016).
+Deep dive: [[:act:section-11|Section 11 — Third-party information]] and [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest balancing]].
+==== §24 — Intelligence and security agencies ====
+{{:icons:grounds:s24-agencies.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
+Section 24(1) exempts the intelligence and security organisations **listed in the Second Schedule** — for example: IB, RAW, CBI, Directorate of Enforcement, NCB, and specified state agencies.
+**Critical carve-outs.**
+  * **§24(1) proviso** — allegations of **corruption** or **human-rights violation** are disclosable, **even for Schedule-II agencies**.
+  * **§24(2) proviso** — for human-rights requests, the request goes through the CIC (central) or SIC (state); response time **45 days**.
+See [[:act:section-24|Section 24 — Intelligence and security]].
+===== §8(2) — the public-interest override =====
+Section 8(2) is the **master override**. Even when a §8(1) exemption applies, disclosure **may be ordered** if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.
+**Who applies §8(2)?**
+  * **PIO** at first instance — must record the balancing reasoning when applying or rejecting the override.
+  * **FAA** on First Appeal — reviews the PIO's balancing and may substitute its own.
+  * **SIC / CIC** on Second Appeal — the final balancing forum.
+  * **High Court** on writ — reviews on legal principle.
+**Record-keeping requirement.** "Public interest not satisfied" without analysis is an appealable defect. The officer must lay out the benefit of disclosure, the harm avoided, and why one outweighs the other.
+Deep dive: **[[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest]]** and **[[:faa-section-19-8-powers|§19(8) — FAA's disclosure power]]**.
+===== §10 — severability =====
+Section 10 requires the PIO to **sever** exempt content from non-exempt content. A blanket refusal of an entire document — when only a portion is exempt — is itself a §10 violation.
+**Example.** An inspection report contains (a) procedural sections, (b) an identified whistleblower's name. The PIO **must** sever (b) under §8(1)(g) and release (a) with the name redacted.
+See [[:act:section-10|Section 10 — Severability]] and //Principal, GMC Thiruvananthapuram v. KIC// (Kerala HC, 2019) — severability is favoured over blanket denial.
+===== Non-grounds — what cannot refuse an RTI =====
+A PIO **cannot** refuse on any of these grounds, even if cited:
+  * **"Confidential" / "Secret" stamp on the file.** §8(1)(a) requires specific harm-test.
+  * **"Matter is sub-judice."** §8(1)(b) requires an **express** court order.
+  * **"Why" questions.** This is a drafting issue, not a refusal ground. The PIO has a §5(3) duty to help reframe. See [[:why-rti-gets-rejected|Why RTI gets rejected]].
+  * **"No reason given by the applicant."** §6(2) explicitly bars asking for reasons.
+  * **"Voluminous request."** §7(9) allows offering inspection + selective copies, **not** blanket refusal.
+  * **"Information is old."** If records exist, they must be supplied. The Act sets no age limit.
+  * **"Information lies with another department."** §6(3) requires the PIO to transfer within 5 days.
+  * **"Applicant's motive is malafide."** §6(2) bars inquiry into motive.
+  * **"Larger public interest not served."** This cannot refuse disclosure — §8(2) is an **override to disclose**, not a freestanding exemption.
+**Common PIO errors:** [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]. **Drafting fixes if your RTI was refused:** [[:why-rti-gets-rejected|drafting fix-it guide]].
+===== Real-life: how a §8(1)(j) refusal got overturned in 47 days =====
+Pratibha Jaiswal, a 34-year-old PWD junior engineer in Lucknow, filed an RTI in November 2025 asking for the **caste / category certificate** submitted by a colleague at the time of recruitment, plus the **internal complaint inquiry** that her colleague had been promoted past her. The PIO refused both items under §8(1)(j) — //"personal information, unwarranted invasion of privacy"//.
+  * **Day 33 (4 December 2025)**: Pratibha filed a **First Appeal under Section 19(1)** to the Chief Engineer (FAA). Her grounds, in three short paragraphs:
+    - Recruitment is a //public activity// — //Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC W.P.(C) 3114/2007. The caste certificate was submitted **to** the public authority **as part of** that public activity. §8(1)(j) cannot apply.
+    - Even if §8(1)(j) had applied //before// 14 November 2025, the **internal public-interest override** has been removed by §44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. The PIO's order conflates the old and new text and is therefore based on a wrong clause.
+    - Severability under §10 was not even attempted — the entire reply is one paragraph of refusal.
+  * **Day 47 (18 December 2025)**: The FAA passed an order directing the PIO to supply the caste certificate (recruitment record) within 10 days, **free of cost** under Section 7(6) since the PIO's first reply was procedurally defective. The internal inquiry report was severed under §10 — administrative actions disclosed, identifiers redacted.
+  * **Day 58 (29 December 2025)**: Documents supplied. Pratibha used them to file a representation to the Departmental Promotion Committee. Her stagnation cleared in the next round.
+The decisive ground was **§44(3) DPDP analysis** — the PIO had simply photocopied a pre-DPDP reply template without noticing the law had changed. After 14 November 2025, every §8(1)(j) refusal that ports the old language is open to a "wrong-text" challenge. Use it.
+→ Full FAA appeal procedure, sample letter, statutory ladder: [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/first-appeal/faa|First Appeal under RTI — Section 19(1) full guide]].
+===== §8(1) vs §9 vs §11 vs §24 — at a glance =====
+^ Provision ^ What it does ^ Standalone ground? ^ Public-interest override available? ^ Time-bound? ^
+| **§8(1)** | Substantive exemption — 10 specific grounds | **Yes** | Yes — via §8(2) | (i) Cabinet papers: yes, post-decision; (h) investigation: yes, post-completion |
+| **§9** | Refusal where disclosure infringes copyright held by **someone other than the State** | **Yes** | No (separate provision) | No — but State-copyright must always be supplied |
+| **§11** | **Procedural** — third-party notice + balancing for records about a third party | **No** — §11 is a process, not a ground | The PIO must apply §8(1) substantively; §11 only controls the notice + balancing | No |
+| **§24** | Exempts intelligence / security organisations in **Second Schedule** | **Yes**, for those bodies only | No — but corruption + human-rights allegations are **always disclosable** | No |
+**Key takeaway.** Every refusal must be locatable on one of §8(1) / §9 / §24. §11 alone is **not a ground** — if your refusal cites only §11, it is procedurally defective.
+===== Got refused? The 30-day appeal path =====
+{{ :icons:grounds:appeal-path.svg?1000 |The RTI appeal path }}
+  - **First Appeal under §19(1)** — file **within 30 days** of receipt of refusal (or of expiry of the 30-day reply window). Addressed to the **FAA within the same public authority**. FAA decides in 30 days, extendable by 15 days with reasons — max 45 days. See [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines|First Appeal timelines]] and [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist|FAA appellate-review checklist]].
+  - **Second Appeal under §19(3)** — file **within 90 days** of the FAA's decision (or of expiry of the FAA's time). Addressed to the **SIC** (state records) or **CIC** (central records). Second Appeals may be argued in person.
+  - **Writ petition** — under Articles 226 (HC) or 32 (SC) for pure questions of law where the Commission has made a legal error or failed to follow precedent.
+  - **Section 20 penalty** — ask the Commission in the second appeal to impose up to **Rs. 25,000** on the PIO who refused without valid ground, delayed, or gave false / misleading information. Penalty is personal to the officer.
+<WRAP center round help 95%>
+**Ready to file your appeal?**
+  * Use the **[[:faa-appellate-review-checklist|FAA appellate-review checklist]]** to structure your grounds.
+  * See **[[:faa-first-appeal-timelines|First Appeal timelines]]** for the exact window and format.
+  * If your original RTI was weak, start with the **[[:why-rti-gets-rejected|drafting fix-it guide]]**.
+</WRAP>
+===== Frequently asked =====
+**Q1. How many grounds are there in Section 8(1)?** \\ Exactly ten — clauses (a) through (j). Any denial citing a ground outside these ten is invalid.
+**Q2. Is "sub-judice" a valid ground to refuse?** \\ No. §8(1)(b) requires an **express** court order forbidding publication. Mere pendency is not enough.
+**Q3. Can a PIO refuse by citing "Confidential" on the file?** \\ No. An internal classification is not itself a §8(1)(a) ground. The PIO must demonstrate specific harm.
+**Q4. What changed in §8(1)(j) on 14 November 2025?** \\ The internal public-interest override and the Parliament proviso were removed by §44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. Public-interest balancing now operates only via §8(2). See [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
+**Q5. Can I get copies of file-notings?** \\ Yes. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, §8(1)(i) does not bar file-notings. The post-decisional disclosure principle in //R.K. Jain v. UoI// (2013) 14 SCC 794 applies.
+**Q6. Can the PIO ask me why I want the information?** \\ No — §6(2) expressly bars this, except for the purposes of contacting the applicant.
+**Q7. If my request is voluminous, can the PIO refuse?** \\ No. §7(9) allows the PIO to **change the form** — typically by offering inspection and copies of specified pages — but not to refuse outright.
+**Q8. Can I get the audit / inspection report of a regulated entity?** \\ Yes — //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 confirmed it, and subsequent HC rulings (//Indian Bank// at Madras, //KSEB// at Kerala) apply it.
+**Q9. What is Section 24 — does it cover all police / security agencies?** \\ No. Only those **listed in the Second Schedule**. And even then, corruption and human-rights-violation allegations are disclosable under the proviso.
+**Q10. What's the maximum penalty on a PIO for wrongful refusal?** \\ Rs. 25,000 under §20(1), imposed personally on the defaulting officer. Repeated defaults can attract departmental action under the service rules. Plead Section 20 explicitly in your **Second Appeal** before the CIC / SIC.
+**Q11. The PIO refused citing §8(1)(d) "commercial confidence" for a contract / tender. What now?** \\ Tender-bid particulars and post-award contract terms are generally **not** trade secrets — they are public-authority acts. //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 and the **PIO Tender & Contract framework** ([[:pio-tender-contract-rti|deep dive]]) treat these as disclosable. Frame your appeal ground as: (a) the data is not a trade secret of a third party; (b) §8(1)(d) requires demonstrable competitive harm; (c) §8(2) public interest favours disclosure; (d) §10 severance can protect any genuinely confidential cost build-up.
+**Q12. Can the PIO ask me to specify §8 sub-clause if I'm appealing a "deemed refusal" (no reply at all)?** \\ No — §7(2) treats silence as a refusal **without** any clause cited. The FAA proceeds //de novo// on the grounds. You do not have to identify which sub-clause was //implicitly// invoked; the burden is on the PIO under §19(5) to justify any continued refusal.
+===== Sample-letter cross-references =====
+The 10 grounds above are abstract until you see them in a real letter. These enriched sample-letter pages each include a //Section 8 risks pre-empted// block already drafted into the RTI body, along with the **First Appeal grounds** if the PIO still refuses:
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/passport|Passport — sample RTI + Bhagat Singh / Maneka Gandhi citations]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/pf-withdrawal|PF withdrawal — sample RTI + EPF Scheme §72(7) hooks]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/scholarship|Scholarship — sample RTI + parallel-PIO strategy]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/fir|FIR / charge-sheet — Lalita Kumari (2014) + §156(3) CrPC route]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/ration-card|Ration card — NFSA 2013 + state PDS Control Order]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/mgnrega|MGNREGA wages — §3(3) compensation + parallel BDO + DPC RTIs]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/mplad|MPLAD — Bhim Singh (2010) + MPLADS Guidelines 2023]]
+  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/land-mutation|Land mutation — state-wise statutory windows]]
+===== Related reading =====
+==== The Act — section pages ====
+  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
+  * [[:act:section-7|§7 — Reply deadline and form]]
+  * [[:act:section-8|§8 — Exemption from disclosure]]
+  * [[:act:section-9|§9 — Copyright]]
+  * [[:act:section-10|§10 — Severability]]
+  * [[:act:section-11|§11 — Third-party information]]
+  * [[:act:section-19|§19 — Appeals]]
+  * [[:act:section-20|§20 — Penalties]]
+  * [[:act:section-24|§24 — Intelligence and security]]
+==== PIO / FAA frameworks ====
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO / FAA knowledge base]]
+  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]]
+  * [[:pio-deemed-refusal-section-7-2|PIO Framework — deemed refusal §7(2)]]
+  * [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist|FAA appellate-review checklist]]
+  * [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines|First Appeal timelines]]
+  * [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing|FAA — privacy vs public interest]]
+  * [[:faa-section-19-8-powers|FAA — §19(8) disclosure powers]]
+==== Case-law anchors ====
+  * [[:bombay-hc-rti-rulings|Bombay HC RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:madras-hc-rti-rulings|Madras HC RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings|Kerala HC RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:karnataka-hc-rti-rulings|Karnataka HC RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:calcutta-hc-rti-rulings|Calcutta HC RTI rulings]]
-**Section 9**
+==== For applicants ====
-**//Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//
-**
+  * [[:file-rti-online-india|How to file RTI online — 2026 guide]]
+  * [[:why-rti-gets-rejected|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]]
+  * [[:faq|RTI FAQ — 25 most-asked questions]]
+  * [[:explanations|All explanations]]
-If an applicant asks copies of a book in a library, or a  work of art, or a film, whose copyright vests with somebody, then it would not be given.
+===== Sources =====
-However, by implication, if the copyright belongs to the State, it would have to be given under Right to Information. To obviate the problem of citizens asking for copies of priced publications of the State, some State rules have stated that for priced publications, the fee to be paid will be the sale price of the publication. However,  no information can be denied on the ground that the copyright vests with the State.
+  * Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019, 2023)
+  * Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j) (effective 14 November 2025)
+  * Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — §3(4)
+  * //S.P. Gupta v. Union of India//, AIR 1982 SC 149
+  * //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497
+  * //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781
+  * //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212
+  * //Namit Sharma v. Union of India//, (2013) 1 SCC 745
+  * //R.K. Jain v. Union of India//, (2013) 14 SCC 794
+  * //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82
+  * //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136
+  * //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1
 ----
+//Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team. All citations verified against the RTI Act, 2005 (as amended), the DPDP Act 2023, and CIC / SC / HC orders as on 4 May 2026.//
-{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}
+{{tag>rejection exemption act section-8 section-9 section-11 section-24 dpdp pio-faa explainer}}
-~~socialite~~
-[<>]