Right to Information Wiki

RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 04:27:14 +0000

2018/06/05 01:21		current
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”	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	Grounds of Rejection of RTI****	+	====== RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals ======
-	There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:	+	**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.**
-	* 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.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-grounds-for-rejection.png?direct&1200 \|RTI grounds for rejection — RTI Wiki }}

		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	‘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>	+	===== Key answer — read this first =====
-	* 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.	+
-	* 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.	+

-	<html>	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	An RTI request may be refused only on these statutory grounds:
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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.	+

-	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.	+	* Section 8(1) — the ten specific exemptions in clauses (a) to (j).
-	<html>	+	* Section 9 — where disclosure would infringe copyright held by someone other than the State.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	* Section 11 — procedural route for information that touches a third party (notice + balancing, not a ground by itself).
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	* Section 24 — the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule, with carve-outs for corruption and human-rights allegations.
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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.	+

-	===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====	+	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**.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	**//(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;//**	+

-	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.	+	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-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
		+	</WRAP>

-	----	+	===== Decode your PIO refusal letter — 60-second triage =====

-	**//(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 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>

-	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.	+	^ 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.

-	//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//	+	===== The 10 grounds at a glance =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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.	+

-	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?	+	<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>

-	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.”	+	===== The PIO decision flow =====

-	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.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:decision-flow.svg?1000 \|PIO decision flow — RTI grounds for rejection }}

-	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.	+	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.

-	**//(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;//**	+	**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>

-	<html>	+	===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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 party likely to be caused by disclosure.	+

-	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.	+	==== 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.

-	//(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;//	+	==== Gate 2 — Is the request for "information" as defined? ====

-	<html>	+	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.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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	+

-	(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	+	\| Rejected \| Re-framed — answerable \|
-	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.	+	\| "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." \|

-	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.	+	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]].

-	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.	+	==== 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.

-	//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//	+	See [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]] and [[:act:section-7\|Section 7 — reply deadline and form]].

-	<html>	+	===== Section 8(1) — the ten grounds =====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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.	+

-	----	+	==== 8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security ====

-	//(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:a-sovereignty.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, 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."

-	**//(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//**	+	**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.**

-	<html>	+	Case law.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:	+
-	- 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.	+

-	----	+	* //S.P. Gupta v. UoI//, AIR 1982 SC 149 — classified files do not enjoy automatic immunity; the harm-test applies.

-	**(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers://Italic Text**//	+	**PIO takeaway. Record the specific item + how it maps to sovereignty / security / strategic / scientific / economic interest or foreign relations. Blanket refusal fails.**

-	<html>	+	==== 8(1)(b) — Court-forbidden disclosure ====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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.	+

-	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):	+	{{:icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 \|RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}

-	(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
-	(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.	+	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>

-	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.	+	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.

-	//**(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:	+	**Case law.**
-	Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//	+

-	<html>	+	* //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions to be narrowly read.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	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)	+
-	(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	+	==== 8(1)(c) — Parliament / Legislature privilege ====

-	b) Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.	+	{{:icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?32 \|RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals — RTI Wiki}}

-	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 a public activity.	+	<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.

-	<WRAP group>	+	==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial 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: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>		</WRAP>
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	<html>	+	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.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- wiki 300 bottom -->	+	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).
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"	+	Case law.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4562457588"></ins>	+	* //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
-	<script>	+	* //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.
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+	==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
-	</html>	+
		+	{{: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>		</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-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|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>		</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. 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.

-	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	+	PIO takeaway. Record the foreign-government source and the confidentiality note. For post-release information, §8(1)(f) does not resurrect.
-	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 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,	+	==== 8(1)(g) — Life and safety ====

-	(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.	+	{{: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.

-	**Section 9**	+	**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.**
-	//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.//	+
-	**	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	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.	+	==== 8(1)(h) — Investigation and prosecution ====

-	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.	+	{{: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-section-8-1-j-framework\|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-section-8-1-j-framework\|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-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|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]]
		+
		+	==== 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]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	* 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.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rejection exemption act section-8 section-9 section-11 section-24 dpdp pio-faa explainer}}

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-	~~socialite~~
-	[<>]

Citizenship under RTI Act 2005

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 04:28:29 +0000

2018/06/01 02:02		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======
-	{{tag>citizenship,india}}{{like>}}	+
-	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400 \|}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-citizen-under-rti-act.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / citizen-under-rti-act — RTI Wiki}}
-	Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations citizen under rti act rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Only a citizen of India can file a Right to Information application. A company, firm, trust, or other juristic person cannot.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* File the application under your own name as an individual, with your signature.
		+	* Do not file on a company letterhead or in the name of a trust. A Public Information Officer can refuse on this ground.
		+	* The Act does not ask for a passport, Aadhaar, or voter identity card as proof of citizenship. A declaration in the application that you are a citizen of India is ordinarily sufficient.
		+	* A director or employee of a company, applying in his or her own name as an individual citizen, can file. The information supplied may then be used by the company, but the right to apply is of the individual, not of the company.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>citizenship india}}
		+	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400x300 \|Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 — RTI Wiki}}
		+	Only citizens can apply for the [[:explanations:information\|information]] under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.

	‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.		‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.
Line 9:		Line 42:

	In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]		In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."		"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."
Line 28:		Line 50:

	- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.		- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.
-	- Section-5(1) provides that every public authority shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.	+	- Section-5(1) provides that every [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.
	- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.		- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
	- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.		- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.
Line 42:		Line 64:
	===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====		===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====
	<pagebreak>		<pagebreak>
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====		==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====

-	The issue whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:	+	The issue of whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:


-	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the definition of word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”	+	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, the definition of the word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:		In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:
Line 80:		Line 80:


-	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 include natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.	+	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 includes natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
		+
		+	The issue of whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	The issue whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======

Line 104:		Line 93:

	In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.		In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..		In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..

Line 133:		Line 111:

	A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”		A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.		The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.

Line 161:		Line 128:
	Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen.		Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen.

-	In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].	+	In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[:act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –		In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –

Line 188:		Line 144:
	52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>		52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>

-	==== Conclusions ====	+	===== Conclusions =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.		* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.
	* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.		* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.
Line 218:		Line 162:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+

Missing Files under RTI Act — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:01 +0000

2018/01/21 08:25		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Missing Files under RTI Act ======	+	====== Missing Files under RTI Act — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-missing-files-under-rti.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / missing-files-under-rti — RTI Wiki}}

		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations missing files under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public...)}}

-	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority.	+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. If the public authority says a record is not traceable, the Public Information Officer must record a search report. The non-availability of records is not an automatic ground of refusal and may attract liability under Section 20 where the authority was expected to hold the record.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Ask specifically for the file number or the record identifier in the application. This prevents the authority from saying "no such record exists" on a loose reading.
		+	* If the authority claims the file is missing, file a further application seeking the search report, the First Information Report lodged on the missing file, if any, and the action taken on the officer responsible.
		+	* The Central Information Commission has held in several orders that the loss of an official record without a reasonable explanation attracts liability on the Public Information Officer and the record-holder.
		+	* A first appeal under Section 19(1) is available against a refusal on the ground of non-availability, and a second appeal under Section 19(3) lies to the Information Commission.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the [[:explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]] rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]].


Line 13:		Line 29:

	The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.		The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “[[:explanations:information\|Information]]” through RTI Application.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “Information” through RTI Application.	+

	S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.		S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.
Line 52:		Line 57:

	The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.		The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).		Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).
Line 76:		Line 70:

	6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.		6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”		7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”

Line 102:		Line 85:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Vicarious Liability under RTI — Who Actually Pays

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:47:14 +0000

2018/01/21 08:26		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{keywords>vicarious liability, rti law, department responsibility, vicarious liability under rti}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(vicarious liability rti, rti section 20, pio personal liability, rti penalty officer, rs 25000 rti penalty, rti disciplinary action)
-	====== Vicarious Liability ======	+	metatag-description=(Who pays the penalty under the RTI Act — the officer, the department, or both? A 2026 note on Section 20 personal liability, deemed CPIOs, and recent penalty trends.)}}
-	{{like>}}	+

-	{{:explanations:vicarious-liability-rti.png?nolink&600\|}}	+	====== Vicarious Liability under RTI — Who Actually Pays ======

-	Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability\|Wikipedia]]))	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-vicarious-liability.png?direct&1200 \|Vicarious Liability under RTI — Who Actually Pays — RTI Wiki}}

-	In the {{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016}} the court(({{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|}})) stated that:	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	If such Officers did not discharge their duties, the department must own up responsibility for the same. The Department must accept the liability for any negligent act of commission or omission on the part of its officers in the course of their employment or discharge of their duty. **This is akin to vicarious liability**, a well- recognized tortious principle of law.	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line: The Right to Information Act does not make the government vicariously liable for a delinquent CPIO. Under [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20]], the penalty is personal — Rs 250 per day up to Rs 25,000, payable by the officer from their own salary. The department cannot reimburse. Additionally, the Commission can **recommend disciplinary action under the service rules. Both remedies can be imposed together**.
		+	</WRAP>

-	It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty. It makes little difference whether such duty is statutory or non-statutory. It does not lie in the mouth of the Department to say that it is an inanimate or impersonal entity and responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers.	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
-	<html>	+	Did you know? The Central Information Commission issued 2,341 personal penalty orders between 2005 and 2024, aggregating over Rs 3.8 crore. Yet recovery remains weak — only about 35 percent of imposed penalties are actually recovered, because departments often process payment from establishment accounts and later pass bills to the officer. The CIC in //Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC// noted that officer-wise recovery reports should be sought.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	</WRAP>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	The Department must make good the loss suffered by a citizen by non-discharging of their duties by the Department's recalcitrant and indolent officers and, thereafter the Department is at liberty to take appropriate steps against its erring officers and bring them to books. In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen.	+	===== Legal Basis =====

		+	* [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20(1)]] — penalty up to Rs 25,000 for (a) refusing to receive, (b) not furnishing in time, (c) malafide denial, (d) knowingly giving incorrect information, (e) destroying records, (f) obstructing disclosure.
		+	* [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20(2)]] — Commission "may recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules applicable to him".
		+	* [[:act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|Section 5(5)]] — deemed CPIO is also personally liable.
		+	* [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(8)(b)]] — compensation to applicant (this IS a department liability).

-	----	+	===== Personal vs department liability — the distinction =====

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	\| Remedy \| Who pays \|
		+	\| Section 20 penalty (Rs 25,000) \| CPIO or deemed-CPIO personally \|
		+	\| Section 20 disciplinary action \| CPIO personally (recorded in service file) \|
		+	\| Section 19(8)(b) compensation to applicant \| Public authority (department budget) \|
		+	\| Legal costs of defending CPIO's refusal \| Department pays, but can be directed to recover from CPIO \|

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	===== How to maximise personal liability =====

-	[<>]	+	The Act creates personal liability but commissions often go light. These steps improve the odds:
		+
		+	- Name the erring officer specifically in your Section 19 appeal. Use the file-movement register evidence from a prior RTI.
		+	- Cite pattern of delay or malice — does this CPIO have similar complaints?
		+	- Prayer for both Section 20 penalty AND disciplinary action — ask for both.
		+	- Attend the hearing personally — if virtual, join on time; if physical, bring the file-movement record.
		+	- If penalty is imposed, follow up on recovery — ask for the recovery order copy by a fresh RTI 30 days later.
		+
		+	===== Landmark rulings =====
		+
		+	* //Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai//, SC (2013) — personal liability of officers confirmed.
		+	* //Mujibur Rahman v. CIC//, (2009) Delhi HC — commission can impose penalty after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
		+	* //Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC//, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — CIC has supervisory powers to track penalty recovery.
		+
		+	===== Sample appeal paragraph (Section 20 prayer) =====
		+
		+	<code>
		+	The Public Information Officer, Shri [Name], Designation [X],
		+	has persistently delayed, without reasonable cause, the
		+	disposal of RTI applications from the appellant. The pattern
		+	shows mala fides under Section 20(1). The appellant prays
		+	that (a) a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 be imposed on the
		+	CPIO personally, (b) disciplinary action be recommended to
		+	the cadre-controlling authority under Section 20(2), and
		+	(c) the recovery be made from the CPIO's salary directly,
		+	with a recovery certificate placed on record.
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	==== Can the CPIO claim ignorance of the file's location as a defence? ====
		+
		+	No. Sections 5(4)-5(5) make the CPIO responsible for seeking assistance. Ignorance is not a defence; inaction is.
		+
		+	==== Can the department pay on the CPIO's behalf? ====
		+
		+	Departments sometimes do, but this is improper. The penalty is //ad personam// and should be recovered from the CPIO's salary. File an RTI asking for the recovery certificate to verify.
		+
		+	==== What is the ceiling on total penalty if multiple RTIs were delayed? ====
		+
		+	Each contravention attracts up to Rs 25,000. Multiple RTIs can compound to much higher aggregate penalty. The Commission has imposed Rs 50,000+ on single officers for pattern delays.
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	If a CPIO has delayed or denied your RTI without reason, use the Section 20 prayer paragraph above in your [[:templates:first-appeal\|first appeal]] and amplify it in the [[:templates:second-appeal\|second appeal]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
		+	* [[:explanations:deemed-cpio\|Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti\|Speaking-order requirement — Section 7(8)]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:templates:second-appeal\|Second Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:tracking-your-appeal-via-ai\|Tracking your CIC appeal]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 20, read with Sections 5(4)-5(5), 19(8).
		+	- CIC Annual Report 2023-24.
		+	- //Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai//, SC (2013).
		+	- //Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC//, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-20 penalty vicarious-liability practice}}

-	~~DISCUSSION~~

Disproportionate Diversion of Resources

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:40 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Disproportionate Diversion of Resources ======		====== Disproportionate Diversion of Resources ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-disproportionate-diversion-resources.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / disproportionate-diversion-resources — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations disproportionate diversion resources rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 7(9) lets the PIO provide information in a form other than asked if doing so would disproportionately divert the authority's resources. It is not a ground to refuse.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Section 7(9) is about form, not refusal — the information is still due.
		+	* Offering inspection of files instead of copies is a common Section 7(9) remedy.
		+	* 'Disproportionate' is judged against the public authority's normal workload, not a fixed threshold.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
		+
		+
		+	Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
		+
	Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005		Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005

Line 6:		Line 25:
	Section 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under**:		Section 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under**:

-	“An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”	+	“An [[:explanations:information\|information]] shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	In following cases it has been decided by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI that Section 7(9) of the Act does not provide ground for denial of information.		In following cases it has been decided by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI that Section 7(9) of the Act does not provide ground for denial of information.
Line 36:		Line 44:

	4. Decision dated 26.3.2008 in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00349		4. Decision dated 26.3.2008 in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00349
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	“..It was explained to respondents that section 7(9) does not authorize refusal of information but only disclosure in a form other than that asked for, for reasons given ion that Section..”		“..It was explained to respondents that section 7(9) does not authorize refusal of information but only disclosure in a form other than that asked for, for reasons given ion that Section..”

	5. Decision dated 9.1.2009 in appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01256		5. Decision dated 9.1.2009 in appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01256
-	“…The denial of information on the basis of Section 11 and Section 7 (9) of the Act was without any basis in law. Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9. Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9)…”	+	“…The denial of information on the basis of Section 11 and Section 7 (9) of the Act was without any basis in law. Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9. Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a [[:explanations:third-party\|third party]] to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9)…”
	**		**
	6. Decision dated 22.10.08 in Appeal No. CIC/WB /A/2007/00528-SM**		6. Decision dated 22.10.08 in Appeal No. CIC/WB /A/2007/00528-SM**
Line 61:		Line 58:

	Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9.		Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9.
-	Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9). Besides the queries do not lend themselves at all to using Section 11 or Section 7 (9). The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant. He is also warned that denying information in this casual manner will invoke the penal provisions of Section 20 of the Act.	+	Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However, the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9). Besides the queries do not lend themselves at all to using Section 11 or Section 7 (9). The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant. He is also warned that denying information in this casual manner will invoke the penal provisions of Section 20 of the Act.
	_____________________________________________________		_____________________________________________________


-	**8. Extract from judgement dated 07-01-2010 of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and	+	8. Extract from the** judgement dated 07-01-2010 of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and
	M.P.NO.1 OF 2009**		M.P.NO.1 OF 2009**

	Available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544		Available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	“13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”		“13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”

Line 106:		Line 92:
	_______________________________________________________		_______________________________________________________

-	NOTE: Despite Office Memorandum N0.12/9/2009-IR dated 24-05-2010 of Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, PIO cannot refuse information. He has to provide it in the form in which it is available. DoPT cannot amend RTI Act 2005.	+	NOTE: Despite Office Memorandum N0.12/9/2009-IR dated 24-05-2010 of Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, PIO cannot refuse information. He has to provide it in the form in which it is available. %%DoPT%% cannot amend RTI Act 2005.

	====== Gist ======		====== Gist ======
Line 112:		Line 98:

	Thus section 7.9 relates to only form in which information has to be supplied. If supplying information in form requested by applicant does not disproportionately divert resources of public authority, then information has to be supplied in the requested form only. However if there is disproportionate diversion of resources to supply in requested form, then information has to be supplied in the form it is available without changing the form. PIO will have to justify how there is disproportionate diversion of resources in changing form from existing form to requested form.		Thus section 7.9 relates to only form in which information has to be supplied. If supplying information in form requested by applicant does not disproportionately divert resources of public authority, then information has to be supplied in the requested form only. However if there is disproportionate diversion of resources to supply in requested form, then information has to be supplied in the form it is available without changing the form. PIO will have to justify how there is disproportionate diversion of resources in changing form from existing form to requested form.
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-	For example, if applicant has desired information in CD form and public authority is holding information in hard copies only, then CPIO has to supply in CD form, if there is no disproportionate diversion of resources. However if large number of papers are to be scanned which may require huge resources [say by way of man power etc] then PIO can supply in hard copies only and not in CD.

-	Disproportionate diversion of resources can always be disputed by applicant by factoring probable expenditure in changing form and total annual administrative expenditure of public authority.	+	For example, if the applicant has desired information in CD form and public authority is holding information in hard copies only, then CPIO has to supply in CD form, if there is no disproportionate diversion of resources. However, if large number of papers are to be scanned which may require huge resources [say by way of manpower etc] then PIO can supply in hard copies only and not in CD.
		+
		+	Disproportionate diversion of resources can always be disputed by the applicant by factoring probable expenditure in changing form and total annual administrative expenditure of public authority.

	Please also peruse:		Please also peruse:
Line 133:		Line 108:


-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{:important-decisions:court-case-laws:treesa-irish-vs-the-central-public-information-...-on-30-august-2010.pdf\|TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006]}}		{{:important-decisions:court-case-laws:treesa-irish-vs-the-central-public-information-...-on-30-august-2010.pdf\|TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006]}}

Line 153:		Line 116:

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

Pendency of Investigation — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 04:28:29 +0000

2017/04/12 02:35		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Pendency of Investigation ======	+	====== Pendency of Investigation — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
-	{{:explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350 \|}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-pendency-of-investigation.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / pendency-of-investigation — RTI Wiki}}

-	The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations pendency of investigation rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 8(1)(h) exempts information that would impede an investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. The bar is high — a general investigation is not automatic cover.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* The PIO must show a specific impediment, not a generic 'investigation pending' label.
		+	* Once the investigation is complete, the exemption usually falls away.
		+	* Section 8(2) public-interest override applies where the investigation is itself the matter of concern.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{ :explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350x262 \|Pendency of Investigation — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	The authority withholding [[:explanations:information\|information]] must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.


Line 13:		Line 28:


-	//“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, [[act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information.”//	+	//“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, [[:act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information.”//

	Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO ((Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011)) had held that :		Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO ((Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011)) had held that :


-	//“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.//	+	//“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[:act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.//

-	//A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information	+	//A [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information
	would 'impede' the investigation...............//		would 'impede' the investigation...............//

Line 41:		Line 56:
	- Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.		- Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.
	- Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).		- Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).
-	- Public authority to disclose information if public interest out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act). The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))	+	- Public authority to disclose information if [[:explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act). The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))
	- There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified. The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))		- There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified. The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))
	- Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))		- Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))


-	== More Common terms under RTI ==	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]
		+	~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}