Section 8 RTI Act Exemptions Explained (with CIC Orders)

Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 lists 11 grounds on which the Public Information Officer is allowed to refuse information. The grounds cover national security, foreign relations, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary information, life and liberty, ongoing investigations, cabinet papers, personal information, contempt of court, and trade secrets. §8(2) gives a public-interest override: the PIO must disclose even an exempt record when the public interest outweighs the harm. §10 requires severability: redact the exempt part, disclose the rest. The CIC has narrowed §8 in landmark orders over the last two decades.

1. §8(1)(a). National security and sovereignty. Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect sovereignty, integrity, security, scientific or economic interests of the State, or relations with foreign States. CIC has limited this to information with a direct security link, not casual mention.
2. §8(1)(b). Forbidden by court or tribunal. Information whose publication a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden, or whose disclosure would amount to contempt of court.
3. §8(1)©. Parliamentary privilege. Information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
4. §8(1)(d). Commercial confidence, trade secrets, IP. Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. The PIO must apply the §8(2) public-interest override before refusing.
5. §8(1)(e). Fiduciary relationship. Information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship. CIC has read this narrowly: only doctor-patient, lawyer-client, banker-customer, and trustee-beneficiary. Government-citizen is NOT a fiduciary relationship.
6. §8(1)(f). Information received in confidence from a foreign government. Self-explanatory.
7. §8(1)(g). Endangering life or physical safety. Information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identify the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
8. §8(1)(h). Investigation, apprehension, prosecution. Information whose disclosure would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. The §8(1)(h) refusal must show specific impedance, not generic claim.
9. §8(1)(i). Cabinet papers. Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers, until the matter is complete or over. After the decision is taken, the record becomes available.
10. §8(1)(j). Personal information. Personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The §8(1)(j) refusal must apply the privacy-versus-public-interest balance.
11. §8(2). Override applies even to Official Secrets Act material. Notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the §8(1) exemptions, a public authority is allowed to disclose information when public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm.

The eleventh implied ground is §9 (separate section): refusal where the information involves an infringement of copyright in a work not in the State's possession. Not strictly under §8, but often cited alongside.

§8(2) is the single most-cited but least-applied clause of the RTI Act. It reads:

A paraphrase of the clause: notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the §8(1) exemptions, a public authority is empowered to allow access to information whenever the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Read the official statute at §8 of the RTI Act.

The clause has three working tests:

1. Identify the protected interest. The PIO must name the §8(1) sub-clause (a) to (j) the information falls under.
2. Identify the public interest. The Appellant (or the PIO on its own) must articulate why the public benefits from disclosure: accountability, anti-corruption, public-health, electoral integrity, citizen-safety, and similar.
3. Weigh the two. Where the public interest is greater, disclosure happens. The CIC in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) held the §8(2) balance is a substantive duty on the PIO, not a discretionary option.

A First Appeal citing §8(2) and framing the public-interest case forces the FAA to record reasons for refusing the override. An unreasoned refusal is a ground for the Second Appeal.

§10 reads:

A paraphrase of the clause: where a request is rejected on the ground of exemption, access shall nevertheless be given to the part of the record without exempt information, where the exempt part is reasonably severable. Read the official statute at §10 of the RTI Act.

In plain language: the PIO redacts the exempt sentences (national security, personal name, trade secret) and supplies the rest. A blanket refusal of the entire document is illegal.

Cite §10 in every appeal where the PIO has refused the entire record without explaining which lines are exempt and which are not.

• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (Supreme Court, 2015). The fiduciary exemption under §8(1)(e) does not protect bank inspection reports. RBI must disclose.
• CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supreme Court, 2019). Judges' asset declarations are NOT exempt under §8(1)(j). The §8(2) balance favours disclosure.
• Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi (Supreme Court, 2012). Examination interview marks are NOT exempt under §8(1)(j) for the candidate's own record. §10 severability applies.
• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Supreme Court, 2011). Evaluated answer scripts are NOT exempt. A candidate is entitled to inspect his own answer script.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi High Court, 2007). Refusal under §8(1)(h) (investigation) requires demonstrating actual impedance, not a generic claim.

Cite the relevant case in the grounds section of your First Appeal or Second Appeal.

1. Read the PIO's letter carefully. Identify which §8 sub-clause the PIO has cited.
2. Apply the three §8(2) tests above. Frame the public interest in concrete terms (anti-corruption, public health, electoral integrity, your own personal interest).
3. Demand severability under §10. Even if part of the record is exempt, the rest must be supplied.
4. Cite the closest CIC or Supreme Court order. The five cases above cover most §8 misuse scenarios.
5. Ask for costs and a §20 penalty. If the §8 refusal was without reasonable cause, the Second Appeal is the place to demand costs under §19(8)(f) and a penalty under §20.

No. §8(2) gives a public-interest override on every §8(1) ground except §8(1)(b) (court-forbidden) and §8(1)(f) (foreign government confidence). The PIO is required to apply the §8(2) balance before refusing.

No. The CIC has repeatedly held the salary of a public servant is a public-activity record, not private. Salary data is disclosable. The same applies to leave records, attendance, and disciplinary records.

No. §8(1)(j) protects the privacy of third parties, not the applicant's own privacy. The applicant is entitled to a copy of his or her own record. The Supreme Court confirmed this in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).

No, except for §8(1)(a), ©, and (i). §8(3) of the Act sets a 20-year limit on most exemptions. After 20 years, all exempt records become disclosable.

Yes. The Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) held the §8(2) balance is a substantive duty on the PIO and the FAA, not a discretionary option triggered only by the applicant.

Often yes, when the PIO has not applied §8(2) or §10 properly. The Commission has narrowed §8 in landmark orders. A well-drafted Second Appeal citing the case law and framing the public-interest argument has a strong record of disclosure orders.

File a First Appeal citing §8(2) and the public-interest in anti-corruption. The CIC has overturned §8 refusals where the PIO has invoked the exemption to shield wrongdoing. Cite Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) and the Supreme Court's §8(2) jurisprudence.

• RTI Application Format 2026
• First Appeal Format with grounds checklist
• Grounds for rejection, deeper explainer
• §8 of the RTI Act, full text
• §10 severability
• §11 third-party consultation
• The RTI Playbook. The complete guide to filing RTI in 2026.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005. §8, §9, §10, §11.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (Supreme Court, 2015).
• CPIO, SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supreme Court, 2019).
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Supreme Court, 2011).
• Central Information Commission. cic.gov.in.
• Department of Personnel and Training. dopt.gov.in.
• Indian Kanoon, case texts. indiankanoon.org.

Last reviewed: 28 May 2026, RTI Wiki editorial team.