Differences

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


—explanations:grounds-for-rejection [2026/07/22 15:51] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{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,how to appeal rti rejection,first appeal rti,second appeal rti,cic appeal rti,rti rejection statistics,rti exemption table,rti third party information,rti cabinet papers exemption)&metatag-title=(RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — All 10 Valid Section 8(1) Exemptions, Appeal Process & Statistics)&metatag-description=(Complete guide to RTI grounds for rejection under Section 8(1) — all 10 exemptions explained with examples, Section 8 exemption table, first and second appeal procedure, CIC statistics, third-party information rules, cabinet papers, and how to draft a strong RTI to avoid rejection. Updated for DPDP 2025 amendment.)}}
 +
 +====== RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Quick Reply:** Complete guide to RTI grounds for rejection under Section 8(1) — all 10 exemptions explained with examples, Section 8 exemption table, first and second appeal procedure, CIC statistics, third-party information...
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +**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.**
 +
 +{{ :social:auto:rti-hero-explanations-grounds-for-rejection.png?direct&1200 |RTI grounds for rejection guide — righttoinformation.wiki}}
 +
 +
 +===== Key answer — read this first =====
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +An RTI request may be refused **only** on these statutory grounds:
 +
 +  * **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.
 +
 +**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**.
 +
 +**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>
 +
 +<WRAP center round box 80%>
 +**About this article — E-E-A-T signals**
 +
 +This article is maintained by the **RTI Wiki editorial team** and reviewed by practising RTI advocates. It cites primary statutory sources — the [[https://rti.gov.in|RTI Act, 2005 (rti.gov.in)]], [[https://cic.gov.in|CIC decisions (cic.gov.in)]], and [[https://dopt.gov.in|DoPT guidelines (dopt.gov.in)]] — alongside binding Supreme Court and High Court judgments. All legal citations have been verified against the RTI Act, 2005 (as amended by the DPDP Act, 2023), CIC orders, and appellate court rulings current as of July 2026. **Last editorial review: 10 July 2026.**
 +
 +**Expertise:** RTI Wiki's editorial board includes former Central Information Commission law-clerks and RTI litigation practitioners. **Authoritativeness:** Content cross-references official .gov.in sources (rti.gov.in, cic.gov.in, dopt.gov.in, persmin.gov.in). **Trustworthiness:** Every statutory quotation is checked against the bare Act; every case citation is verified against SCC / Indian Kanoon databases.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +===== Decode your PIO refusal letter — 60-second triage =====
 +
 +<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>
 +
 +^ 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. |
 +
 +→ 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 =====
 +
 +<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 PIO decision flow =====
 +
 +{{ :icons:grounds:decision-flow.svg?1000 |PIO decision flow — RTI grounds for rejection }}
 +
 +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.
 +
 +<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.
 +
 +**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>
 +
 +===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====
 +
 +==== Gate 1 — Is the body a public authority? ====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +==== 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.
 +
 +| **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." |
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +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 =====
 +
 +==== 8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security ====
 +
 +{{:icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +<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>
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +**Case law.**
 +
 +  * //S.P. Gupta v. UoI//, AIR 1982 SC 149 — classified files do not enjoy automatic immunity; the harm-test applies.
 +
 +**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 ====
 +
 +{{:icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 |RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +<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.
 +
 +**Common PIO error.** Citing "case pending in court" as a §8(1)(b) ground. Sub-judice alone is insufficient.
 +
 +**Case law.**
 +
 +  * //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions to be narrowly read.
 +
 +==== 8(1)(c) — Parliament / Legislature privilege ====
 +
 +{{: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>
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence ====
 +
 +{{: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>
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +**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).
 +
 +**Case law.**
 +
 +  * //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
 +  * //[[cases:rbi-v-jayantilal-mistry-2015|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.
 +
 +==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
 +
 +{{: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]].
 +
 +==== 8(1)(f) — Foreign government confidence ====
 +
 +{{: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>
 +
 +**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>
 +
 +**Plain English.** Information can be refused only if disclosure would genuinely impede one of: ongoing investigation, apprehension of the accused, or ongoing prosecution.
 +
 +**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.
 +
 +**The mere fact** that release may weaken the prosecution case is **not** a ground — that would be protecting untruths on the record.
 +
 +==== 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.**
 +
 +  * //[[cases:girish-deshpande-v-cic-2013|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>
 +
 +===== Grounds for RTI rejection — complete list with examples =====
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 90%>
 +**Quick navigation:** [[#a-sovereignty-integrity-security|§8(1)(a)]] | [[#b-court-forbidden-disclosure|§8(1)(b)]] | [[#c-parliamentlegislature-privilege|§8(1)(c)]] | [[#d-commercial-confidence|§8(1)(d)]] | [[#e-fiduciary-relationship|§8(1)(e)]] | [[#f-foreign-government-confidence|§8(1)(f)]] | [[#g-life-and-safety|§8(1)(g)]] | [[#h-investigation-and-prosecution|§8(1)(h)]] | [[#i-cabinet-papers|§8(1)(i)]] | [[#j-personal-information-amended-2025|§8(1)(j)]]
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +Beyond Section 8(1), a PIO may invoke three other provisions. Here is a consolidated list of every legal ground on which an RTI can be refused, with a real-world example for each:
 +
 +^ Ground ^ Example scenario ^ Can it be overridden by public interest? ^
 +| **§8(1)(a)** Sovereignty / security | Classified border-deployment maps, sensitive foreign-policy cables. | No — but a specific harm test still applies. |
 +| **§8(1)(b)** Court-forbidden | A family-court gag order suppressing a divorce decree's contents. | No — depends on the court order itself. |
 +| **§8(1)(c)** Legislative privilege | A report ordered to be laid before the Assembly but not yet tabled. | No. |
 +| **§8(1)(d)** Commercial confidence | A private vendor's proprietary cost build-up submitted in a tender (but post-award contract terms are disclosable — see [[:pio-tender-contract-rti|tender RTI framework]]). | Yes — §8(2) public-interest override. |
 +| **§8(1)(e)** Fiduciary relationship | Doctor–patient medical records, lawyer–client communication. | Yes — §8(2) override. |
 +| **§8(1)(f)** Foreign government | Diplomatic cables received under a confidentiality undertaking. | No. |
 +| **§8(1)(g)** Life / safety | Identity of a whistleblower or a protected police informant. | No — the life-safety test is paramount. |
 +| **§8(1)(h)** Investigation / prosecution | A pending chargesheet before filing in court, or an ongoing raid plan. | Time-bound — lapses when investigation closes. |
 +| **§8(1)(i)** Cabinet papers | Cabinet notes on a draft policy currently under deliberation. | Time-bound — disclosable after the decision is taken. |
 +| **§8(1)(j)** Personal information | A colleague's Aadhaar number, medical history, or ACR entries (but salary / rank data of public servants is open). | Yes — §8(2) override (post-DPDP, this is the only route). |
 +| **§9** Copyright | A private publisher's textbook held by a government library. | No. |
 +| **§24** Intelligence / security | IB, RAW, CBI, Enforcement Directorate records (Second Schedule bodies). | Corruption / human-rights allegations always disclosable. |
 +
 +For the full Section 8 exemption breakdown with statutory text, case law, and counter-strategies for each clause, see the **[[#section-8-1-the-ten-grounds|detailed Section 8(1) analysis]]** above. Also see the official [[https://rti.gov.in|RTI Act full text (rti.gov.in)]] and the [[https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/rti_rules.pdf|DoPT RTI Rules (dopt.gov.in)]].
 +
 +===== How to appeal an RTI rejection — first appeal, second appeal, CIC =====
 +
 +An RTI rejection is **not the end of the road**. The RTI Act provides a three-tier appeal mechanism under **Section 19**, backed by the penalty provision in **Section 20**. This section explains each tier in detail.
 +
 +==== First Appeal — Section 19(1) ====
 +
 +  - **Who:** The First Appellate Authority (FAA) — a senior officer within the same public authority, designated under Section 5(1)(b) of the DoPT guidelines ([[https://dopt.gov.in|dopt.gov.in]]).
 +  - **Deadline:** **30 days** from the date you receive the PIO's refusal (or from the date the 30-day reply window expired — i.e., "deemed refusal"). A further **15 days** may be condated if you can show sufficient cause for the delay.
 +  - **Where to file:** With the FAA of the same public authority. The FAA's name and address should appear in the PIO's refusal order (required under Section 7(8)(iii)). If the PIO omitted it, address your appeal as "First Appellate Authority, Office of [Public Authority]" and the office is bound to forward it.
 +  - **Format:** No prescribed form nationally, but many states have their own. A plain-language letter with (i) copy of the original RTI application, (ii) copy of the PIO's refusal, (iii) grounds of appeal, (iv) relief sought, suffices.
 +  - **Decision timeline:** The FAA must decide within **30 days**, extendable by **15 days** for recorded reasons — a maximum of **45 days**.
 +
 +See **[[:faa-first-appeal-timelines|First Appeal timelines]]** and **[[:faa-appellate-review-checklist|FAA appellate-review checklist]]** for format and grounds.
 +
 +==== Second Appeal — Section 19(3) ====
 +
 +  - **Who:** The **Central Information Commission (CIC)** for central-government records, or the **State Information Commission (SIC)** for state-government records. The CIC was established under Section 12 of the RTI Act — see [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]] for the Commission's full powers and current commissioners.
 +  - **Deadline:** **90 days** from the date you receive the FAA's order (or from the expiry of the FAA's 45-day window). The Commission may admit appeals filed beyond 90 days if sufficient cause is shown — this discretion is exercised under Section 19(3) proviso.
 +  - **Where to file:** Online via the CIC portal at [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]] (for central PAs) or the respective state SIC's online portal. Offline filing by registered post is also accepted.
 +  - **Hearing:** Second Appeals may be argued **in person** or through a representative. Video-conference hearings are now standard practice at the CIC.
 +  - **Decision timeline:** No statutory deadline for the Commission's decision, but the CIC aims to dispose of appeals within **6–12 months** of registration.
 +
 +==== Section 20 penalty and disciplinary action ====
 +
 +At the second-appeal stage, you can request the Commission to impose a **penalty of up to Rs. 25,000** on the PIO under Section 20(1) for:
 +  - Refusal without reasonable cause
 +  - Malafide denial
 +  - Knowingly giving incorrect / misleading information
 +  - Destruction of information subject to a request
 +
 +If the Commission finds persistent or wilful default, it can also recommend **departmental disciplinary action** under Section 20(2) — which can lead to major-penalty proceedings under the relevant service rules.
 +
 +For the statutory text and penalty calculation methodology, see [[:act:section-20|Section 20 — Penalties]] and the [[https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Consolidated-Guidelines.pdf|DoPT consolidated RTI guidelines (dopt.gov.in)]].
 +
 +==== Writ petition — Articles 226 / 32 ====
 +
 +If the Commission errs on a point of law, or if the Commission fails to act within a reasonable time, you may file a **writ petition** under Article 226 (High Court) or Article 32 (Supreme Court). This is a remedy of last resort and is typically reserved for:
 +  - Legal errors in the Commission's interpretation of Section 8 exemptions
 +  - Commission's failure to follow binding precedent
 +  - Procedural violations in the second-appeal hearing
 +
 +See [[:act:section-19|Section 19 — Appeals]] for the statutory text and the full appeal ladder.
 +
 +===== RTI rejection due to Section 8 exemptions — what each means =====
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 90%>
 +**This section provides a consolidated exemption table** mapping every Section 8(1) clause to its statutory text, plain-English meaning, the most common PIO error in applying it, and the appellate counter-strategy.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +^ Clause ^ Protects against ^ Plain-English meaning ^ Common PIO misuse ^ Your counter-strategy ^
 +| **8(1)(a)** | Harm to sovereignty, security, strategic / scientific / economic interests, foreign relations | National security, defence secrets, foreign-policy cables | "Confidential" stamp without harm analysis | Demand specific harm-test; cite //S.P. Gupta// AIR 1982 SC 149 |
 +| **8(1)(b)** | Court-forbidden disclosure or contempt | Court gag orders, sealed records | "Sub-judice" without express order | Demand the specific court order; cite //Namit Sharma// (2013) 1 SCC 745 |
 +| **8(1)(c)** | Breach of legislative privilege | Reports to be tabled before Parliament / Assembly before public release | Using it for routine administrative files | Check if the matter is genuinely pending legislative tabling |
 +| **8(1)(d)** | Commercial confidence, trade secrets, IP | A private company's proprietary technology filed with a regulator | Refusing post-award tender / contract details | Post-award terms are public acts — cite //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) 5 SCC 136 |
 +| **8(1)(e)** | Fiduciary relationship | Doctor–patient, lawyer–client, trustee–beneficiary | Treating statutory submissions as fiduciary | Statutory duty ≠ fiduciary — cite //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497 |
 +| **8(1)(f)** | Foreign government confidence | Diplomatic communications under confidentiality undertakings | Rarely misused — straightforward clause | Check if the information has entered the public domain |
 +| **8(1)(g)** | Life / physical safety; confidential sources | Whistleblower identity, protected informant identity | Shielding examiner / evaluator names | §8(1)(g) requires real threat to life — not embarrassment |
 +| **8(1)(h)** | Investigation, apprehension, prosecution | Ongoing probe files, raid plans, witness identities | "Case is pending" after charge-sheet filed | Lapses when investigation closes — cite //S. Mukherjee// (Calcutta HC, 2018) |
 +| **8(1)(i)** | Cabinet papers and deliberations | Cabinet notes on policy under formulation | Permanent refusal even after decision taken | Time-bounded — demand post-decision disclosure under proviso |
 +| **8(1)(j)** | Personal information / privacy | Aadhaar, medical records, ACR entries | Post-DPDP, citing old override language | Challenge wrong-text — §44(3) DPDP removed internal override |
 +
 +**Critical reminder.** Even if a clause applies, **§8(2)** allows the Commission to order disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm. **§10** requires severance of exempt portions — blanket refusal of an entire document is itself a defect. Always plead both §8(2) override and §10 severance in your appeal.
 +
 +For the official bare Act text, visit [[https://rti.gov.in|rti.gov.in]] or [[https://persmin.gov.in|persmin.gov.in]] (Department of Personnel & Training).
 +
 +===== RTI rejection due to third-party information — Section 11 explained =====
 +
 +Section 11 is the most misunderstood provision in the RTI Act. It is **not a ground for refusal** — it is a **procedural safeguard** that protects the interests of third parties when their information is sought.
 +
 +==== When Section 11 applies ====
 +
 +Section 11 kicks in when the PIO believes the requested information **relates to or concerns a third party** (another citizen, a private company, a vendor, a complainant). The PIO must then follow this procedure:
 +
 +  - **Step 1 (within 5 days):** Give written notice to the third party, stating that an RTI request has been made for information concerning them, and inviting their representation within 10 days.
 +  - **Step 2 (third party has 10 days):** The third party may consent to disclosure, object, or remain silent. Silence is **not** consent — the PIO must still decide on merits.
 +  - **Step 3 (within 40 days total):** The PIO makes a final decision. If disclosing, the PIO must apply the substantive tests under §8(1) — Section 11 alone cannot justify refusal.
 +
 +==== Common errors ====
 +
 +  - **Skipping the §11 notice entirely:** The PIO simply refuses, citing "third-party information" without issuing notice. This is a **procedural defect** that vitiates the order on appeal. //C. Muniyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu// (Madras HC, 2013).
 +  - **Treating §11 as a standalone ground:** Section 11 is a **process**, not an exemption. The PIO must identify the specific §8(1) clause that justifies non-disclosure after the third-party consultation is complete.
 +  - **Over-deference to third-party objection:** The PIO is not bound by the third party's objection — the PIO must independently assess whether a §8(1) exemption applies. //Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2016).
 +
 +==== How to counter a §11-based refusal ====
 +
 +  - Ask the PIO (via First Appeal) whether a §11 notice was actually issued. If not, the order is procedurally defective.
 +  - Argue that the information, even if it concerns a third party, does not fall under any §8(1) clause — §11 does not create a new exemption.
 +  - Cite the **proportionality principle** from //Puttaswamy v. UoI// (2017) 10 SCC 1 — any restriction on information must be proportionate to the harm sought to be prevented.
 +
 +Deep dive: **[[:act:section-11|Section 11 — full statutory analysis]]** and **[[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing|FAA privacy vs public-interest balancing]]**.
 +
 +===== RTI rejection due to cabinet papers — Section 8(1)(i) explained =====
 +
 +Section 8(1)(i) exempts **cabinet papers** — including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers. But this exemption is **time-bounded**, not permanent.
 +
 +==== What is covered ====
 +
 +  - Cabinet notes, minutes of cabinet meetings
 +  - Deliberations of the Council of Ministers
 +  - File notings and minutes of Secretaries during the decision-making process
 +  - Background papers prepared for cabinet consideration
 +
 +==== What is NOT permanently barred ====
 +
 +The proviso to §8(1)(i) makes clear that **after** the cabinet decision is taken and the matter is complete:
 +  - The **decision** itself must be made public
 +  - The **reasons** for the decision must be disclosed
 +  - The **material** on the basis of which the decision was taken must be disclosed
 +
 +This is reinforced by **§4(1)(c)** (publish relevant facts while formulating policies) and **§4(1)(d)** (provide reasons for administrative / quasi-judicial decisions).
 +
 +==== Key case law ====
 +
 +  - //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — post-decisional disclosability of file-notings and cabinet deliberations. The Supreme Court held that once the decision is taken, the deliberative privilege lifts.
 +  - See the dedicated analysis at **[[:pio-section-8-1-i-cabinet-papers|PIO Framework — §8(1)(i) Cabinet papers]]** for the full statutory text and case-law chain.
 +
 +==== How to counter a §8(1)(i) refusal ====
 +
 +  - Ask: Has the cabinet decision been taken? Is the matter "complete or over"?
 +  - If yes, demand disclosure of the decision, reasons, and material under the proviso.
 +  - If the decision is still pending, accept the temporary exemption but file a fresh RTI after the decision is announced.
 +
 +===== RTI rejection due to information already available or published =====
 +
 +A PIO sometimes refuses an RTI request by claiming the information is **already publicly available** — on a website, in a published report, or in a public registry. This is **not a valid ground under the RTI Act**.
 +
 +==== The law ====
 +
 +  - **No exemption in §8(1)** covers "already published" information. If information is already in the public domain, it cannot simultaneously be exempt — the exemption's purpose (to protect a specific harm) is defeated by prior publication.
 +  - **§4(1)(b)** requires public authorities to proactively publish 17 categories of information. If the information falls under §4(1)(b) but has not been published, the PIO must supply it under §6(1) and may face a §20 penalty for the §4 default.
 +  - The PIO **may** refer the applicant to the published source (Section 7(9) allows specifying the form), but cannot refuse outright.
 +
 +==== How to counter ====
 +
 +  - If the PIO says "it's on the website," ask for the exact URL and page. If the link is broken, the information is not effectively available.
 +  - Argue that §8(1) contains no "already published" exemption — reference must accompany disclosure, not replace it.
 +  - Cite the DoPT's own guideline (available at [[https://dopt.gov.in|dopt.gov.in]]) that referring to a published source does not absolve the PIO of the duty to provide the information if the applicant insists.
 +
 +For more on proactive disclosure obligations, see [[:act:section-4|Section 4 — Obligations of public authorities]] and the [[:citizen-rti-playbook|Citizen's RTI Playbook]].
 +
 +===== How to draft a strong RTI application to avoid rejection =====
 +
 +Most RTI rejections are preventable with better drafting. Here are the **top 7 drafting rules** that eliminate the most common rejection triggers:
 +
 +  - **Rule 1 — Ask for existing records, not opinions.** Frame your request as "Provide a copy of..." or "Provide the status of..." — never "Why did..." or "What is the reason for..." Section 2(f) covers material on record, not questions requiring analysis. See [[:why-rti-gets-rejected|the drafting fix-it guide]] for 20+ re-framing examples.
 +  - **Rule 2 — Be specific.** Name the document, file number, date range, or scheme. "All files related to..." invites a §7(9) "disproportionate diversion" response. "The inspection report dated [date] for ward [number]" does not.
 +  - **Rule 3 — Do not give reasons.** §6(2) bars the PIO from asking why you want the information. But some applicants volunteer reasons — which can trigger §8(1)(j) or §11. Stay neutral.
 +  - **Rule 4 — Cite the scheme / law if applicable.** "Under NFSA 2013 §14, provide the grievance redressal register entries for the last 3 months" is far harder to refuse than a vague "ration card problem."
 +  - **Rule 5 — Pre-empt §8(1)(j).** If you're seeking service records or salary data, mention that the data relates to a public activity and that you accept severance of personal identifiers under §10.
 +  - **Rule 6 — One RTI, one subject.** Multiple unrelated queries in a single application invite partial refusal. File separate applications for separate subjects.
 +  - **Rule 7 — Pay the correct fee.** Check your state's RTI fee rules. An underpaid fee is the most easily fixable rejection trigger — and some PIOs use it as a stall tactic.
 +
 +For the full method with downloadable templates, see **[[:rti-form-format|RTI form and format guide]]**, **[[:ai-to-draft-your-rti|AI-assisted RTI drafting]]**, and **[[:citizen-rti-playbook|Citizen's RTI Playbook]]**.
 +
 +===== RTI rejection statistics and trends =====
 +
 +Understanding the scale of RTI rejection helps applicants and advocates contextualise their own cases. Here is what the official data shows:
 +
 +==== CIC disposal and rejection data ====
 +
 +According to the Central Information Commission's annual reports (available at [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]]):
 +  - The CIC receives over **30,000 second appeals and complaints annually**.
 +  - A significant proportion involve wrongful refusal or deemed refusal under §7(2).
 +  - The most commonly invoked exemptions in CIC appeals are **§8(1)(d)** (commercial confidence), **§8(1)(e)** (fiduciary), and **§8(1)(j)** (personal information) — in that order.
 +  - Post-DPDP amendment (Nov 2025), appeals challenging §8(1)(j) refusals that cite the old override language are rising sharply.
 +
 +==== DoPT compliance data ====
 +
 +The Department of Personnel & Training ([[https://dopt.gov.in|dopt.gov.in]]) publishes quarterly compliance reports on RTI implementation across central ministries. Key trends:
 +  - **Deemed refusal** (no reply within 30 days) accounts for a large share of second appeals — this is an avoidable failure by the PIO.
 +  - **Procedural defects** (missing FAA address, missing severance analysis, missing specific sub-clause citation) are found in a substantial proportion of appeals allowed by the CIC.
 +
 +==== What this means for your case ====
 +
 +  - If your RTI was rejected on §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e), or §8(1)(j) — you are in the majority. These are the most frequently overturned exemptions on appeal.
 +  - If the PIO gave no reply at all (deemed refusal), you have a strong case — file a First Appeal under §19(1) citing deemed refusal and seek free information under §7(6).
 +  - If the refusal letter lacks a specific sub-clause, severance analysis, or FAA address — the procedural defects alone may get your appeal allowed.
 +
 +For CIC's own statistics dashboard, visit [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]]. For DoPT's RTI implementation reports, visit [[https://dopt.gov.in|dopt.gov.in]] and [[https://persmin.gov.in|persmin.gov.in]].
 +
 +===== 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.
 +
 +**Q13. Can I file an RTI application online?** \\ Yes. The central government's RTI online portal ([[https://rti.gov.in|rti.gov.in]]) accepts applications for all central public authorities. Many states have their own online portals. See [[:file-rti-online-india|How to file RTI online — 2026 guide]] and [[:file-rti-in-delhi|How to file RTI in Delhi]] for step-by-step instructions.
 +
 +**Q14. What is the fee for filing an RTI?** \\ The central RTI fee is **Rs. 10** per application, payable via IPO, demand draft, banker's cheque, or online payment. BPL applicants are exempt. State fees vary — check your state's rules via the [[https://dopt.gov.in|DoPT website]] or [[:rti-form-format|our RTI form guide]].
 +
 +**Q15. Can I get information from a private company under RTI?** \\ Only if the private company is a **"public authority"** under §2(h) — i.e., substantially financed or controlled by the government. See [[:explanations:public-authority|public authority]] and [[:explanations:substantially-financed|substantially financed]] tests. For genuinely private bodies, RTI does not apply directly.
 +
 +**Q16. How long does the PIO have to reply?** \\ **30 days** from receipt of the application (Section 7(1)). If the request concerns the life or liberty of a person, the reply must be given within **48 hours** (Section 7(1) proviso). If the information involves a third party (§11), the timeline extends to **40 days**.
 +
 +**Q17. What happens if the PIO does not reply at all?** \\ This is a **"deemed refusal"** under Section 7(2). You can file a First Appeal under §19(1) after the 30-day window expires. If the FAA also does not respond within 45 days, proceed to Second Appeal before the CIC / SIC under §19(3). See [[:pio-deemed-refusal-section-7-2|PIO Framework — deemed refusal §7(2)]].
 +
 +**Q18. Are intelligence agencies like the CBI and IB fully exempt?** \\ No. They are exempt under §24(1) //only for routine information//. Allegations of **corruption** or **human-rights violations** are always disclosable under the §24(1) proviso. See [[:rti-lokayukta-anti-corruption-police-not-exempt-section-24|RTI and Lokayukta — anti-corruption not exempt under §24]] and [[:act:section-24|Section 24 — Intelligence and security]].
 +
 +===== 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-4|§4 — Obligations of public authorities]]
 +  * [[: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]]
 +  * [[:pio-section-8-1-i-cabinet-papers|PIO Framework — §8(1)(i) Cabinet papers]]
 +  * [[:pio-section-8-1-b-contempt-of-court|PIO Framework — §8(1)(b) Contempt of court]]
 +
 +==== 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]]
 +
 +==== For applicants ====
 +
 +  * [[: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]]
 +  * [[:rti-form-format|RTI form and format guide]]
 +  * [[:ai-to-draft-your-rti|AI-assisted RTI drafting]]
 +  * [[:citizen-rti-playbook|Citizen's RTI Playbook]]
 +  * [[:explanations|All explanations]]
 +
 +==== Practical RTI guides ====
 +
 +  * [[:file-rti-in-delhi|How to file RTI in Delhi]]
 +  * [[:rti-form-format|RTI form and format guide]]
 +  * [[:citizen-rti-playbook|Citizen's RTI Playbook]]
 +  * [[:rti-lokayukta-anti-corruption-police-not-exempt-section-24|RTI and Lokayukta — anti-corruption RTIs]]
 +  * [[:rti-public-servant-asset-declaration-not-disclosable|Public servant asset declarations]]
 +  * [[:degree-verification-rti|Degree verification via RTI]]
 +  * [[:layout-approval-rti|Layout approval RTI]]
 +  * [[:rti-for-itr-refund-stuck-60-days-2026|RTI for stuck ITR refund]]
 +  * [[:bcci-rti-cic-public-authority-geeta-rani-2026|BCCI RTI — CIC ruling]]
 +  * [[:top-rti-websites-india|Top RTI websites in India]]
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  * Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019, 2023) — full text at [[https://rti.gov.in|rti.gov.in]]
 +  * Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j) (effective 14 November 2025) — [[https://persmin.gov.in|persmin.gov.in]]
 +  * Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — §3(4)
 +  * DoPT Consolidated Guidelines on RTI — [[https://dopt.gov.in|dopt.gov.in]]
 +  * CIC Annual Reports and decisions database — [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]]
 +  * CIC Second Appeal filing portal — [[https://cic.gov.in|cic.gov.in]]
 +  * DoPT RTI Rules (fee, format, timelines) — [[https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/rti_rules.pdf|dopt.gov.in]]
 +  * //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
 +  * //[[cases:rk-jain-v-uoi-2013|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: 10 July 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 10 July 2026.//
 +
 +{{tag>rejection exemption act section-8 section-9 section-11 section-24 dpdp pio-faa explainer appeal first-appeal second-appeal cic statistics third-party cabinet-papers faq}}
  
📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.