Right to Information Wiki

Third-Party Information under RTI — Section 11 Procedure 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:10:02 +0000

2018/06/03 15:25		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Third Party under RTI ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(third party under rti,section 11 rti,third party notice rti,rti third party procedure,section 11 third party information,rti third party consent,third party rti delhi hc,third party rti after dpdp 2025,rti section 11 timeline,third party rti appeal)&metatag-description=(Section 11 of RTI Act 2005 — when PIO must consult a third party before disclosure. 7-step procedure, 40-day window, public-interest override under Section 8(2).)}}
-	{{like>}}{{tag>Insert Tag-Syntax}}	+
-	The High Court of Delhi((Delhi High Court Decision: Suhas Chakma v. CIC & Ors. W. P. (C) No. 9118/2009 dated 22/01/2010)) held - “that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party”.	+

-	Section 11(1) of the [[act:]] provides as follows:	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	//“11. Third party information- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:	+	====== Third-Party Information under RTI — Section 11 Procedure 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-third-party.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / third-party — RTI Wiki}}

-	Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”//	+	<WRAP info>
-	====== How to interpret Third Party Clause ======	+	In one line. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires the Public Information Officer to give a written notice to a third party, and a chance to be heard, before information supplied by that third party and treated as confidential is disclosed to an applicant.

-	When the PIO puts in motion the third party reference, he is of a view that the information is not exempt, and is giving the chance to the third party to voice any objections which could be based on the exemptions under the Act. Only if the third party’s objection is in line with one of the exemptions under Section 8 (1) or Section 9, the PIO will again examine the issue. If he is convinced that an exemption applies, he must change his earlier position to disclose. It must be stressed that the issue of a larger public interest needs to be invoked only if the exemption is established. Otherwise, no public interest in disclosure needs to be established. It is also evident that if there is no response from the third party, the information has to be disclosed since the PIO has come to the conclusion that the information is not exempt.	+	What that means in practice.
		+	* "Third party" means any person other than the applicant and the concerned public authority. Another public authority can also be a third party.
		+	* Notice must go out within five days of receipt of the application.
		+	* The third party has ten days to make a written or oral submission.
		+	* The Public Information Officer must take a decision within forty days** of the application (Section 11 extends the standard thirty-day limit by ten days for this class of matter)**.
		+	* The notice is a rule of natural justice. It is not, in itself, a ground to refuse disclosure.
		+	* After 14 November 2025, Section 8(1)(j) privacy reasoning operates against the amended clause. The Section 11 procedure is unchanged, but its outcome is more conservative on personal information.
		+	</WRAP>

-	Hon’ble **//High Court of Gujarat in the Special Civil Application nos. 16073 & 17067 of 2007 decided on 16/8/2007 (2008(2) RTI 461)// Paragraph 16 & 17:**	+	<div didyouknow>
		+	**Did you know? A Public Information Officer who skips the Section 11 notice-and-hearing sequence has committed a procedural default. Any order that follows is infirm at first appeal, regardless of the merits. Process is not a formality. It is a right vested in the third party**.
		+	</div>

-	“......looking to the provision of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2005, the words, the information ‘relating to or is supplied by the third party’ are such that it is for the third party to point out to the Public Information Officer sought for, to be disclosed supplied is treated as confidential but, third party can make a submission that now it is treating the said information as confidential. More so, when information is ‘relating to third party’ it may not be even know to that third party when and what information relating to third party, was collected by public body.................... What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information ‘relating to or supplied by the third party’ as confidential.”	+	===== A stuck file usually has a third-party problem behind it =====
-	{{:explanations:third-party-rti.jpeg?400 \|}}	+

-	The said judgment also says, “What satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to disclosure of information about satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to the Act especially Section 8(d), 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) and looking to the process of disclosing information to the appellant ‘relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party’, the Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs, harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information, in considering whether the	+	Most delayed RTI replies, most partial denials, and a surprising number of Section 8(1)(j) refusals trace back to a single drafting error by the Public Information Officer. The information asked for relates to, or was supplied by, someone other than the applicant and the public authority. Section 11 was triggered. Notice was either not issued, or issued late, or issued without a hearing, or decided without recording reasons in writing. The third party had no say. The applicant got silence. Both parties lose.
-	public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.	+

-	In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of //Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 decided on 30/07/2010//, in Paragraph 21, which are as follows:	+	This page sets out what Section 11 actually requires, what the leading High Court and Commission decisions say about the process, how the 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) reshapes the outcome, and the checklist a Public Information Officer and an applicant should keep next to the file.
-	<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 requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy.	+

-	This is a valuable right of a third party that encapsulates the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a disclosure of information pertaining to or which ‘relates’ to such third party without affording such third party an opportunity of being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered. This is a procedural safeguard that has been inserted in the RTI Act to balance the rights of privacy and the public interest involved in disclosure of such information. Whether one should trump the other is ultimately for the information officer to decide in the facts of a give case.”//	+	===== Who is a "third party" =====

		+	Section 2(n) of the Act defines a third party as "a person other than the citizen making a request for information" and includes a public authority. Three categories of third party recur in practice.

-	===== Procedure of disclosing third party information: =====	+	* An individual — the colleague named in a file noting, the spouse whose assets are on record, the doctor whose medical opinion was sought.
		+	* A corporate or a firm — the contractor whose bid was filed, the bank whose KYC record is held, the vendor whose invoice is on the file.
		+	* Another public authority — the ministry that forwarded a confidential note, the State department that shared an inter-governmental communication, the Commission that sent an advisory.

-	Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is triggered once the PIO intends to disclose to an applicant any information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party. Once Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is applicable, the PIO shall follow the procedure of serving a notice to the third party for seeking objections whether such information shall be disclosed or not.	+	The test is functional. Whoever supplied the information or whose interest is affected by its disclosure is a third party for the purposes of Section 11. The applicant is never a third party to her own application. The answering public authority is not a third party to its own record.

-	On receipt of the submissions of the third party, the PIO shall keep the submissions in view and then decide whether the information sought shall be disclosed or not. If the PIO does not find any merit in the submissions of the third party, he shall disclose the information sought to the applicant. On the other hand, where the PIO decides that the information sought shall not be disclosed then the basis for denial of information must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. However (except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law) even where the PIO is of the view that there is possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party, but public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any such harm or injury, he may disclose the information. Section 11 does not give the third party a right of veto in giving information.	+	===== The text of Section 11 =====

-	The Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:	+	<code>
		+	11. Third party information.

-	- The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.	+	(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
-	- Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into. If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.	+
-	- The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in hands of a busy body to settle a personal score.”	+

-	==== PIO uses Section 11 when he intends to provide information and not deny it: ====	+	Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
-		+

-	"The PIO is expected to follow the procedure of Section 11 when he "intends to disclose any information or record". This means that the PIO has come to the conclusion that the information is not exempt as per the provisions of the RTI Act."	+	(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

-	==== Section 11 gives only an 'opportunity' to the third party to voice its objections to disclosing information: ====	+	(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
-		+
-	"Section 11 (1) clearly states that submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information."	+

-	==== The PIO will weigh the situation and make his own decision: ====	+	(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.
-		+	</code>
-	"The PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. As per Section 11 (3), the PIO has to determine the whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If the third party wishes to appeal against the decision of the PIO, he can file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act as per the provision of Section 11 (4)."	+

-	==== The third party's denial cannot be the last word: ====	+	===== When Section 11 is triggered, and when it is not =====
-		+
-	"Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It clearly anticipates situations where the PIO will not agree with the claim for non-disclosure by a third party and provides for an appeal to be made by the third party against disclosure, which would have been unnecessary, if the third party had been given a veto against disclosure. Thus the PIO is expected to follow the procedure of Section 11, when he intends to disclose the information but has some reason to believe that the third party treats it as confidential. If the third party sends an objection, the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt under the provisions of the Act."	+

-	==== PIO can take the shelter of Section 8 (1) (j) for declining information only if it is a purely personal information. ====	+	Section 11 applies only when both conditions are met.

-	States Mr Gandhi's order: "To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria: 1. 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. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates."	+	- The information was supplied by, or relates to, a person other than the applicant and the answering public authority.
		+	- That person has treated the information as confidential.

-	==== What is Public Activities performed by Public Authorities? ====	+	If either condition is absent, Section 11 does not apply. Routine disclosures of the applicant's own file, of publicly available records, or of information the third party has itself already published do not attract the Section 11 process.

-	Public authorities in routine course take personal information of citizens: "The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization or passport, all these are public activities. Also when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity."	+	The Gujarat High Court in //Special Civil Application Nos. 16073 and 17067 of 2007// (decided 16 August 2007, reported at 2008 (2) RTI 461) held that the expectation of confidentiality rests with the third party. "What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information 'relating to or supplied by the third party' as confidential." The Public Information Officer cannot read the third party's mind. The way to find out is to issue the notice.

-	==== Citizen's right to information is given priority with regard to privacy: ====	+	===== The Section 11 timeline — from filing to decision =====
-		+
-	"The Supreme Court of India has ruled that citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of mis-governance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the citizen's right to information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy."	+
-	<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>	+
-	In extraordinary situations there are other laws which apply to secure privacy of information: "We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. "	+

-	==== What does exemption of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act mean? ====	+	^ Day ^ Event ^ Provision ^
		+	\| Day 0 \| Application received by the Central or State Public Information Officer \| Section 6(1) \|
		+	\| Within Day 5 \| Written notice issued to the third party \| Section 11(1) \|
		+	\| Within Day 15 \| Third party makes representation in writing or orally \| Section 11(2) \|
		+	\| Within Day 40 \| Public Information Officer decides, records reasons in writing, notifies applicant and third party \| Section 11(3) \|
		+	\| Days 41 to 70 \| Third party may appeal to the First Appellate Authority \| Section 11(4) read with Section 19(1) \|
		+	\| Post first appeal \| Either party may prefer a Second Appeal to the Information Commission \| Section 19(3) \|

-	Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:	+	===== The Section 11 procedure — step by step =====
-	"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"	+
-	(Reference: [[http://www.moneylife.in/article/third-party-clause-of-the-rti-act-should-denial-of-information-be-accepted-by-the-pio/28276.html\|Third party clause of the RTI Act: Should denial of information be accepted by the PIO?- MoneyLife]]	+

-	It is clearly stated at Section 11 (1) that	+	==== Step 1. The Public Information Officer forms an initial view ====

-	Submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI act.	+	Section 11 is only triggered when the Public Information Officer intends to disclose. Before that intent is formed, the Public Information Officer must apply the Section 8 and Section 9 exemptions. If the information is exempt under, say, Section 8(1)(a) relating to national security or Section 8(1)(j) relating to purely personal information with no public-activity link, no disclosure is proposed at all. Section 11 does not enter the picture. If, after exemption analysis, the Officer concludes that the information is disclosable, and the information has been supplied by or relates to a third party that has treated it as confidential, the Officer is now obliged to issue the Section 11 notice.

-	The test of public interest is to be applied to give information, only if any of the exemptions of Section 8 apply. Even if the exemptions apply, the Act enjoins that if there is a larger Public interest, the information would still have to be given. There is no requirement in the Act of establishing any public interest for information to be obtained by the sovereign Citizen; nor is there any requirement to establish larger Public interest, unless an exemption is held to be valid.	+	==== Step 2. The five-day notice ====

-	Insofar as looking at the credentials of the applicant are concerned, the lawmaker has categorically stated that in Section 6 (2) , ‘An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.’ Since the law categorically states that no information shall be required be supplied by the applicant except those that may be necessary for contacting him, it is clear that the credentials of the applicant are of no relevance, and are not to be taken into account at all when giving the information. Truth remains the Truth and it is not important who accesses it. If there is a larger Public interest in disclosing a Truth, it is not relevant who gets it revealed.	+	The notice must issue within five days of receipt of the application. It must

-	Under this Act, providing information is the rule and denial an exception. Any attempt to constrict or deny information to the Sovereign Citizen of India without the explicit sanction of the law will be going against the rule of law. The Citizen needs to give no reasons nor are his credentials to be checked for giving the information. If the third party objects to giving the information, the Public Information Officer must take his objections and see if any of the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1) apply. If any of the exemption clauses apply, the PIO is then obliged to see if there is a larger Public interest in disclosure. If none of the exemption clauses apply, information has to be given.	+	* Describe the request in sufficient detail for the third party to identify what information is sought.
		+	* State that the Public Information Officer presently intends to disclose the information.
		+	* Invite the third party to make a written or oral submission within ten days.
		+	* Give the contact details of the Public Information Officer.

-	===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====	+	A notice that is issued late is still a notice. The applicant's decision clock stretches to forty days regardless. A notice that is not issued at all is a breach of Section 11 and is a ground on its own for reversal in appeal.
-	<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 third party has to be someone apart from the applicant and the Public authority from whom the information is sought. However, another public authority would also be considered as a third party.	+	==== Step 3. The ten-day representation window ====

-	The Government in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.	+	The third party's submission may be in writing or oral. It must be recorded on the file either way. The grounds that a third party may urge are limited to Section 8 exemptions and, for trade or commercial secrets, Section 9. General pleas of inconvenience, reputational concern, or commercial sensitivity not traceable to a statutory exemption do not constitute valid objection under the Act.

-	Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PIO cannot disclose such information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed. As defined in clause (a) of [[act:\|Section 2]] of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. Is it a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PIO liable to action.(({{ :explanations:no_990.pdf \|Another Public Authority is Third Party, DOPT OM}} ))	+	==== Step 4. The Public Information Officer decides within forty days ====

-	- {{:explanations:cic_ad_a_2011_001494_sg_14922_m_67611.pdf\|Mr. S. K. Kalra Vs Ministry Of External Affairs}} File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001494/SG/14922 dated 21.09.2011	+	The Officer must weigh the third party's submission alongside the applicant's right to information and the public interest. The decision must
-	- {{:explanations:gujarat.pdf\|Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Gujarat State Information}}	+
-	- {{:explanations:cic_sg_a_2012_000879_18681_m_81689.pdf\|Smt.Anita Singh vs Ministry Of External Affairs}}1 May, 2012, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000879/18681	+
-	- {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board DecisionFile No: No. CIC /A T/A/2008/01262//SG/2109}}	+

		+	* Be in writing.
		+	* State the exemption considered and why it applies or does not apply.
		+	* If disclosure is against the third party's wishes, record the reason, including the public interest finding where relevant.
		+	* Be communicated to both the applicant and the third party.
		+	* Inform the third party of the right to appeal within 30 days (Section 19(1)).

-	----	+	A bare "refused" or a bare "disclosed" order without reasons is unsustainable at first appeal. Section 7(8) reinforces this: the decision must state the reasons for rejection, the appellate window, and the name of the First Appellate Authority.

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	==== Step 5. The third party's right of appeal ====
-	<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>	+
-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+

-	[<>]	+	Section 11(4) read with Section 19 gives the third party an independent right of appeal. The first appeal lies before the First Appellate Authority of the department within thirty days of the Section 11(3) order. A second appeal lies before the Central or State Information Commission within ninety days of the first appellate order, or of the expiry of the period for making it.
		+
		+	Where the Public Information Officer has decided to disclose over the third party's objection, disclosure does not take effect until the Section 11(4) appeal window has closed. That is the practical meaning of the hearing right. An applicant who complains about delay beyond Day 40 should first check whether a Section 11(4) appeal is pending before the First Appellate Authority.
		+
		+	===== Section 11 after the DPDP Rules, 2025 =====
		+
		+	With the notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025, Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 became operational and substituted Section 8(1)(j). The public interest override that was earlier embedded within clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning in RTI now flows through Section 8(2), which allows disclosure of exempt information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest, outside the trade-secret category.
		+
		+	The Section 11 procedure is unchanged. The outcome is more conservative on personal information.
		+
		+	* A Public Information Officer receiving an application that seeks personal information of a third party must, as always, apply Section 8(1)(j) first. After 14 November 2025 the clause-(j) test no longer has a built-in override.
		+	* If Section 8(1)(j) applies and the Officer nevertheless proposes to disclose, disclosure must be justified under Section 8(2). The reasoning for the override must be recorded in writing, on the file, before notice to the third party is even contemplated.
		+	* The Section 11 notice is still mandatory if the information was supplied by or relates to the third party and was treated as confidential.
		+	* The third party's representation now has a stronger basis. The amended clause-(j) exemption is absolute on its face. Only a Section 8(2) finding can displace it.
		+
		+	For the practitioner note on how a Public Information Officer should draft the reply and the file noting in this new position, see [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after the DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+
		+	===== Leading decisions on Section 11 =====
		+
		+	==== Privacy and the duty of notice ====
		+
		+	//Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission//, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) No. 9118/2009, decided 22 January 2010. The High Court held that information involving the privacy rights of a third party under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The Commission cannot, on a concession of parties before it or by agreement, find that public interest overrides privacy without hearing the third party. Notice is a condition of jurisdiction, not a courtesy.
		+
		+	//Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO//, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) 6614/2008, 8999/2008, and 8407/2009, decided 30 July 2010 (Muralidhar J.). Section 8(1)(j) is a defence available to a third party. The Section 11 procedure is the operational mechanism through which that defence is put on the record. Whether privacy or public interest trumps in a given case is for the Public Information Officer to decide on the facts. See [[:important-decisions:court:arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|case page]].
		+
		+	==== Personal information and public servants ====
		+
		+	//Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212. The Supreme Court declined to direct disclosure of a public servant's service record on a Section 8(1)(j) analysis, holding that the disclosure had no demonstrated relationship to any public activity. Status after 14 November 2025. The ratio on the non-disclosure of purely personal information continues. The Court's reliance on the clause-(j) public-interest override is now read against the amended clause. Public interest override applications after the amendment operate through Section 8(2). See the case page at [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande]].
		+
		+	==== Information versus a record ====
		+
		+	//Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497. The RTI Act covers "information" as defined in Section 2(f) — records, documents, samples, opinions that exist in some form. It does not create a duty to generate new information. Section 11 applies only to information that actually exists on record and was supplied by a third party; it does not authorise the Public Information Officer to canvass third parties for fresh disclosures.
		+
		+	==== Fiduciary information ====
		+
		+	//Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525. The Supreme Court narrowed the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e). A regulator-regulated relationship is not by itself fiduciary. Where information was supplied by a regulated entity to its regulator, Section 11 is engaged. The third party may still raise Section 8(1)(d) trade-secret grounds.
		+
		+	==== Privacy as a fundamental right ====
		+
		+	//K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment does not repeal the RTI Act. It supplies the constitutional backdrop against which Section 8(1)(j) is read. Public Information Officers must treat personal information with heightened care, even where the Act's exemption framework does not, on its face, protect it.
		+
		+	==== Public Information Officer's assets ====
		+
		+	//CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal//, (2020) 5 SCC 481. Information on the assets of judges of the Supreme Court held disclosable. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed that Section 11 procedure must be followed where the information is tied to a named third party, and the balance is struck on a case-by-case basis.
		+
		+	==== Public-interest override in action ====
		+
		+	//Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India//, (2024) (Electoral Bonds case). Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know about political funding. A statutory confidentiality clause yields to the constitutional right to information on a public-interest test. The reasoning is transposed into Section 11 decisions where the third party is a corporate donor.
		+
		+	==== Academic records of public institutions ====
		+
		+	//Delhi High Court on PhD theses// (December 2024). Theses submitted by research scholars to publicly-funded universities are public records and disclosable under the RTI Act, subject only to narrow Section 8(1)(j) carve-outs with Section 10 severance. The third-party notice to the scholar is still required; the grounds of objection are limited.
		+
		+	==== Public servants' assets ====
		+
		+	//Madras High Court on Annual Property Returns// (2024). Annual Property Returns of All India Services officers are disclosable where a public-interest justification is made out. Section 11 notice to the officer remains mandatory; the Section 8(2) public-interest override is the engine after 14 November 2025.
		+
		+	===== Inter-departmental confidential notes — when another public authority is the third party =====
		+
		+	Section 2(n) expressly includes a public authority within the meaning of "third party". Where a public authority "X" receives confidential information from public authority "Y" (typically a note, an opinion, an inter-departmental advisory, or a communication flagged "confidential"), and an application under the RTI Act asks for that material from "X", the Public Information Officer of "X" must consult "Y" under Section 11 before any disclosure. Non-compliance makes the Officer liable to action on appeal.
		+
		+	The Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 1/10/2009-IR dated 29 April 2009 affirms this position: another public authority is a third party, and the Section 11 notice is a statutory requirement, not a matter of inter-departmental comity.
		+
		+	===== Public Information Officer's checklist — Section 11 in practice =====
		+
		+	<WRAP note>
		+	Before disclosing any information that was supplied by or relates to a third party, record on the file:
		+	- The exemption analysis under Section 8 and Section 9 (one line each for every clause considered).
		+	- The finding that the information is disclosable, or disclosable subject to severance under Section 10.
		+	- The identity of every third party affected.
		+	- The evidence that the information has been treated as confidential by the third party (cover letter, file noting, or context).
		+	- The date on which the Section 11(1) notice issued, the mode of service, and the date of deemed receipt.
		+	- Every representation received from the third party and the date it was received.
		+	- The reasoned decision under Section 11(3), quoting the exemption relied on and, where the override is invoked, the Section 8(2) finding in one paragraph.
		+	- The date on which the decision was communicated to the applicant and the third party.
		+	- The thirty-day appeal window notified to the third party.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Common mistakes in Section 11 practice =====
		+
		+	<WRAP alert>
		+	Do not do these. Each is a ground for reversal in appeal.
		+	* Treating Section 11 as a refusal ground. Section 11 is a procedure, not an exemption. Refusal lives in Section 8 and Section 9.
		+	* Asking the third party to consent. The right of the third party is to be heard. The Officer decides, not the third party. A third-party veto has no statutory basis.
		+	* Skipping notice when the information is routine personal data. Even an entry on a list can be "supplied by" a third party. Issue the notice.
		+	* Issuing notice after Day 5. The clock is statutory. Late notice stays on the record as a default.
		+	* Deciding without reasons. A one-line "disclosed" or "refused" is not a speaking order.
		+	* Disclosing before the third party's appeal window closes. Disclosure after decision but within the appeal window is a contempt of the appeal right under Section 11(4).
		+	* Treating Section 11 as a Section 8(1)(j) delegation. The Public Information Officer still owns the exemption analysis after 14 November 2025. Section 8(2) public-interest overrides require the Officer's own findings, not the third party's.
		+	* Ignoring Section 10 severability. Where parts of a record are disclosable after redaction, severability and Section 11 operate in tandem. Issue notice on the redacted extract.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Infographic — the Section 11 decision tree =====
		+
		+	<code>
		+	Application received
		+	↓
		+	Does the record exist (Section 2(f))? ── No → Section 7(9) reply, no Section 11
		+	↓ Yes
		+	Is any exemption under Section 8 or 9 attracted? ── Yes, and not overridden
		+	↓ → Refusal. No Section 11.
		+	↓ No (or override applies under Section 8(2))
		+	↓
		+	Was the information supplied by or relating to
		+	someone other than the applicant, and treated
		+	as confidential by that person? ── No → Disclose. No Section 11.
		+	↓ Yes
		+	Section 11(1) notice → within 5 days
		+	↓
		+	Third party representation → within 10 days
		+	↓
		+	Section 11(3) reasoned decision → within 40 days
		+	↓
		+	Notify third party of Section 11(4) / Section 19 appeal right
		+	↓
		+	If no appeal within 30 days → disclosure takes effect
		+	If appeal is preferred → stay on disclosure until First Appellate Authority rules
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	==== What is a "third party" for Section 11 purposes? ====
		+
		+	Any person other than the applicant and the public authority to whom the application is addressed. A corporate, a firm, an individual, and another public authority all count. The test is whether the information was supplied by that person or relates to that person and whether that person has treated it as confidential.
		+
		+	==== When must the Section 11 notice be issued? ====
		+
		+	Within five days of the date on which the Public Information Officer receives the application. The clock starts on receipt of the application, not on receipt of the file or on allocation.
		+
		+	==== Does the third party's objection stop the disclosure? ====
		+
		+	No. The third party has a right to be heard, not a veto. If the Public Information Officer finds, after considering the objection, that no Section 8 exemption applies, or that Section 8(2) public interest outweighs the protected interest, the information must be disclosed. The third party's remedy is the Section 11(4) appeal, not the Section 11(2) representation alone.
		+
		+	==== What if the third party does not respond within ten days? ====
		+
		+	The Public Information Officer proceeds on the material on file. Silence from the third party does not create an exemption. The Officer's duty to apply Section 8 and Section 9 remains unchanged.
		+
		+	==== Has the DPDP amendment changed the Section 11 procedure? ====
		+
		+	No. The procedure in Section 11 is unchanged. The outcome of the exemption analysis under Section 8(1)(j) has changed. After 14 November 2025, personal information is exempt under clause (j) without the embedded public interest override. The override must now be found under Section 8(2). The Section 11 notice is issued in the same way.
		+
		+	==== Is another government department a "third party"? ====
		+
		+	Yes. Section 2(n) includes a public authority within the meaning of "third party". Inter-departmental confidential notes attract the Section 11 procedure.
		+
		+	==== Can a Public Information Officer disclose information without Section 11 notice if the third party has no objection? ====
		+
		+	Only where the third party has clearly and expressly consented in writing, or where the information was never "treated as confidential" by the third party. An implied waiver cannot be presumed from silence before the notice.
		+
		+	==== What is the timeline for the third party's appeal? ====
		+
		+	Thirty days from the date of the Section 11(3) order, to the First Appellate Authority. A further ninety days to the Information Commission after the first appellate order, or after the expiry of the time for the first appellate order. These are the same windows as for an applicant's appeal.
		+
		+	==== Does Section 11 apply to trade and commercial secrets? ====
		+
		+	Trade and commercial secrets are a separate exemption under Section 8(1)(d). Section 11 still applies — notice to the third party remains mandatory — and the third party's objection on trade-secret grounds is assessed under Section 8(1)(d). The proviso to Section 11(1) expressly carves trade and commercial secrets out of the general public-interest override.
		+
		+	==== What if the applicant is the third party? ====
		+
		+	An applicant seeking her own records is not a third party to her own application. Section 11 does not apply to that sub-set. It applies where the information pertains to someone else.
		+
		+	===== Act now — file, reply, or appeal =====
		+
		+	<WRAP help>
		+	If you are an applicant and your RTI involves information about another person or a corporate:
		+	* Draft specifically. Ask for records, not opinions.
		+	* Flag that the matter attracts Section 11, so the Public Information Officer cannot plead ignorance of the procedure.
		+	* Anticipate the forty-day clock. Factor it into your timeline.
		+	* Start from the template at [[:templates:first-rti\|Template: first RTI]] and the practitioner walk-through at [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
		+
		+	If you are a Public Information Officer and a Section 11 question is on your desk:
		+	* Use [[:templates:pio-third-party-notice\|Template: third-party notice under Section 11]] to issue the notice.
		+	* Record the decision using [[:templates:pio-reply-partial-denial\|Template: partial disclosure with severability]] where only parts of the record are disclosable.
		+	* Consult [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after the DPDP Rules, 2025]] for the post-amendment position.
		+
		+	If you are a third party served with a Section 11 notice:
		+	* Reply within ten days, in writing, specifying the Section 8 or Section 9 clause you rely on.
		+	* Preserve your Section 11(4) appeal right. It is independent of the applicant's appeal right.
		+	* See [[:guide:applicant:first-appeal\|First Appeal under Section 19(1)]] for the drafting pattern; the same principles apply to a third party's appeal.
		+
		+	If you are a First Appellate Authority and a Section 11 decision has come to you:
		+	* Check procedural compliance first: five-day notice, ten-day representation window, forty-day decision, reasoned order.
		+	* Procedural default alone is a ground for remand or reversal.
		+	* See [[:templates:faa-speaking-order\|Template: speaking order on a first appeal]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related pages =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy\|Privacy under the RTI Act]] — the Section 8(1)(j) concept page.
		+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection under Section 8]] — each clause explained.
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability under Section 10]] — partial disclosure, how it works alongside Section 11.
		+	* [[:explanations:public-interest\|Public interest under the RTI Act]] — the Section 8(2) override.
		+	* [[:templates:pio-third-party-notice\|Template: third-party notice under Section 11]].
		+	* [[:templates:pio-reply-partial-denial\|Template: partial disclosure with severability]].
		+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for Public Information Officers]].
		+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for First Appellate Authorities]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. UoI, Electoral Bonds, 2024]].
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]].
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== 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]]
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005), Sections 2(n), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20.
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
		+	- Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 1/10/2009-IR dated 29 April 2009 — third party includes another public authority.
		+	- //Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission//, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) No. 9118/2009, decided 22 January 2010.
		+	- //Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO//, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) 6614/2008 and connected matters, decided 30 July 2010.
		+	- //Gujarat High Court// in Special Civil Applications Nos. 16073 and 17067 of 2007, decided 16 August 2007, 2008 (2) RTI 461.
		+	- //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+	- //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
		+	- //K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
		+	- //Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal//, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
		+	- //Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India//, Supreme Court, Electoral Bonds decision, 2024.
		+	- //Delhi High Court// direction on PhD theses disclosure under the RTI Act, December 2024.
		+	- //Madras High Court// direction on Annual Property Returns of All India Services officers, 2024.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	20 April 2026, with reference to the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it stands after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3), in force 14 November 2025.
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations third-party section-11 dpdp-2025 privacy public-interest pio applicant}}

-	~~DISCUSSION~~

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

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:10:32 +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 amended privacy clause, fiduciary, security, commercial. Counter-strategies for each.)}}
-	{{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 RTI Act, 2005 contains ten grounds on which a Public Information Officer may reject a request — from national security to personal information. After the DPDP 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j), the public-interest override moved to Section 8(2). Every rejection must cite a specific sub-clause with factual nexus under Section 7(8)(i).**
-	* 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>

-	----	+	===== The 10 grounds at a glance =====

-	//(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;//	+	<WRAP center round round 95%>
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?48 }} \| §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 }} \| §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 }} \| §8(1)(c) — Breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. [[#c-parliamentlegislature-privilege\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?48 }} \| §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 }} \| §8(1)(e) — Information available in a fiduciary relationship. [[#e-fiduciary-relationship\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(f) — Information received in confidence from a foreign government. [[#f-foreign-government-confidence\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?48 }} \| §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 }} \| §8(1)(h) — Impedes investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. [[#h-investigation-and-prosecution\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and deliberations (time-bounded). [[#i-cabinet-papers\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(j) — Personal information / unwarranted invasion of privacy. **Amended 2025. [[#j-personal-information-amended-2025\|Detail →]] \|**
		+	</WRAP>

-	The exemption will only apply when any matter has been specifically and expressly forbidden to be made public by a court or tribunal. Even if an issue is subjudice, the information has to be provided. This exemption will only apply if a specific order of the Court or tribunal says the particular information has been prohibited from disclosure. Such a disclosure would be contempt of court and hence barred.	+	===== The PIO decision flow =====

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

-	//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//	+	The diagram is the legal order of analysis. **A ground under §8(1) is never the first gate. A PIO must first establish that the body is a public authority and that the request is for "information" as defined; then apply §7(9) for form, not refusal; only then reach §8(1) / §9 / §24 and the §8(2) override and §10 severability**.
-	<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 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.

-	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.”	+	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>

-	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.	+	===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====

-	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.	+	==== 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.

-	//(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;//	+	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.

-	<html>	+	==== Gate 2 — Is the request for "information" as defined? ====
-	<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.	+	Section 2(f) defines "information" as material in any form that exists on record. The PIO is not obliged to answer questions, interpret law, or create fresh analysis.

-	----	+	\| Rejected \| Re-framed — answerable \|
		+	\| "Why have I not got a ration card?" \| "Current status of my ration-card application file and the next step pending with the officer." \|
		+	\| "Why have I not got admission?" \| "Category-wise cut-off and last-allotted rank for this programme." \|
		+	\| "Why was my bill so high?" \| "Meter-reading log for the last 24 months and tariff slab applied to each cycle." \|

		+	This is the single biggest drafting fix. The Act's Section 5(3) even casts a positive duty on the PIO to help reframe such queries. The full method, with 20+ examples, is at [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]].

-	//(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 3 — §7(9) governs form, not refusal ====

-	<html>	+	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.
-	<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	+	See [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]] and [[:act:section-7\|Section 7 — reply deadline and form]].
-	The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.	+

-	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the information is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in a discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license or passport, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In such a situation, it cannot be claimed that the information has been given in a fiduciary relationship.	+	===== Section 8(1) — the ten grounds =====

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

-	----	+	{{ :icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?32 }}

-	//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//	+	<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>

-	<html>	+	Plain English. For genuine national-security or strategic-harm cases — not for documents stamped "Confidential."
-	<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.	+

-	----	+	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.

-	**//(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;//**	+	**Case law.**

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

-	----	+	PIO takeaway. Record the specific item + how it maps to sovereignty / security / strategic / scientific / economic interest or foreign relations. Blanket refusal fails.

-	//(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//	+	==== 8(1)(b) — Court-forbidden disclosure ====

-	<html>	+	{{ :icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 }}
-	<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.	+

-	----	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	**(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers://Italic Text//**	+	**Plain English. Applies only when a specific court / tribunal order bars publication. "Matter is sub-judice" by itself is not enough.**

-	<html>	+	Common PIO error. Citing "case pending in court" as a §8(1)(b) ground. Sub-judice alone is insufficient.
-	<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):	+	Case law.

-	(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;	+	* //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions to be narrowly read.
-	(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.	+

-	It ensures that the advice given to the cabinet and its deliberations would not be revealed when it is being discussed. However, once the decision to make a law or policy has been taken, the reasons and records should be put before the public. This is the true empowerment of citizens and an attempt to bring in a participatory democracy and accountability. It is worth noting that this is the only provision in Section 8 (1), which while exempting disclosure of certain information, puts the responsibility on the government to put it in public once the decision is taken. There is an additional comment at this juncture.	+	==== 8(1)(c) — Parliament / Legislature privilege ====

-	----	+	{{ :icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?32 }}

-	//(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:**	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
-	Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//	+	Statutory text. //Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	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.
-	<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	+	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.

-	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.	+	==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence ====

-	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.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?32 }}

		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a [[:explanations:third-party\|third party]], unless the [[:explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] is satisfied that larger [[:explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] warrants the disclosure.//
		+	</WRAP>

		+	Plain English. All four must be satisfied: (i) the data belongs to a third party; (ii) it is trade-secret / commercial-confidence / IP; (iii) disclosure would harm competitive position; (iv) no larger public interest overrides.

-	<WRAP group>	+	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).
-	<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.	+	Case law.

		+	* //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
		+	* //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — RBI's own regulatory records are disclosable; §8(1)(d) can't shield them.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<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>
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	<html>	+	Plain English. A fiduciary relationship requires choice + trust + benefit of the provider — lawyer / client, doctor / patient, banker / customer, trustee / beneficiary.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- wiki 300 bottom -->	+	What is NOT fiduciary.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"	+	* Information given to fulfil a statutory requirement (income-tax return, passport application, job application) — no choice, no fiduciary.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	* Employee service records held by the employer — regulatory, not fiduciary.
-	data-ad-slot="4562457588"></ins>	+	* Information the regulator holds about a regulated entity — not fiduciary.
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	Case law.
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+	* //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 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information received in confidence from foreign government.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. The only clause where a mere claim of "received in confidence" triggers exemption. Most information received from a foreign government is therefore unlikely to be given unless it has already been released into the public domain.
		+
		+	PIO takeaway. Record the foreign-government source and the confidentiality note. For post-release information, §8(1)(f) does not resurrect.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(g) — Life and safety ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<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>		</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. For whistleblowers and confidential informants in law-enforcement — not for routine examiner names, interviewer names, or remarks by superior officers.

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

-	(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:h-investigation.svg?32 }}

-	----	+	<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.

-	**Section 9**	+	**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**.
-	//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.	+	The mere fact that release may weaken the prosecution case is not a ground — that would be protecting untruths on the record.

-	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.	+	==== 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<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 }}
		+
		+	<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 }}
		+
		+	<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 }}
		+
		+	§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 }}
		+
		+	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]].
		+
		+	===== 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.
		+
		+	===== 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: 21 April 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~~
-	[<>]

What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/06/03 05:39		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== What is Public Interest ======	+	====== What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026 ======
-	{{like>}}{{tag>RTIAct}}	+
-	{{:explanations:screen_shot_2017-04-13_at_1.29.43_pm.png?300 \|}}	+

-	In various decisions, it has been held that the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. However, it has been held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-public-interest.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / public-interest — RTI Wiki}}

-	The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(public interest RTI 2026, RTI Section 8(1)(j) after DPDP, does public interest override work 2026, RTI personal information disclosure current rules, Section 8(2) RTI override, rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Public interest under the RTI Act in 2026 — what the DPDP amendment actually changed, what it did not change, and how to write a Section 8(2) override plea that.)}}

-	- where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure;	+	{{ :public-interest-flowchart.png?1200x662 \|Public interest under RTI 2026 — where Section 8(2) still works (green) versus the myths around the DPDP amendment (red)}}
-	- where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect;	+
-	- the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence;	+
-	- the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought;	+
-	- the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case;	+
-	- the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced	+
-	<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>	+
-	The terms public interest has to be interpreted as “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.	+

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

-	===== Court Decisions on Public Interest =====	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? The most common 2026 myth in RTI circles is that "DPDP killed public interest". It did not. What changed is the text of Section 8(1)(j). The Section 8(2) public-interest override survived, untouched. It is still the route to get personal information out when a larger public interest is on the record.
		+	</WRAP>

		+	//Updated 20 April 2026. Written for someone who has been refused under Section 8(1)(j) and has been told the override is "dead". It isn't.//

-	The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61((Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61)) held that the statutory exemption provided under [[Act:\|Section 8]] of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. It was also held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The relevant extract from the said judgment is quoted below:	+	===== Table of contents =====

-	''22. “The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs ((State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252])). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]''	+	* [[#what_is_public_interest\|What is public interest]]
		+	* [[#what_changed_on_14_november_2025\|What changed on 14 November 2025]]
		+	* [[#before_and_after_\u2014_the_comparison\|Before and after — the comparison]]
		+	* [[#does_the_override_still_work_in_2026\|Does the override still work in 2026]]
		+	* [[#how_to_write_a_section_82_plea_that_wins\|How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins]]
		+	* [[#court_and_commission_rulings\|Court and Commission rulings]]
		+	* [[#stakeholder_impact\|Stakeholder impact]]
		+	* [[#frequently_asked_questions\|Frequently asked questions]]

-	''23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality.”''	+	//The table of contents is collapsed by default site-wide — click the heading to expand.//

-	The Hon’ble High Court in its decision dated 13/07/2012((W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011- UPSC vs. R.K. Jain)) wherein while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:	+	===== What is public interest =====

-	//“‘The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if “public interest” justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information.”//	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not define "public interest" anywhere in its text. That is on purpose. The drafters left it to the Commissions and the Courts to fill in, case by case. What we have in 2026 is roughly three decades of accumulated judgments — from the //S.P. Gupta// expansion of Article 19(1)(a) in 1981, through //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) and its "disclosure is the rule" line, to [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|//K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017)]] and the proportionality test.

-	Furthermore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.)(((Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.) SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012)) is pertinent, wherein it was held as under:	+	In working language, public interest asks three things about a disclosure. Does it advance accountability in the use of public money or public power? Does it help detect, deter, or remedy wrongdoing? Does it enable a citizen to make an informed democratic choice? If the answer to any of those is yes, and the harm from disclosure does not clearly outweigh that benefit, the disclosure is in the public interest.

-	''“:13............Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”''	+	The Act uses "public interest" in two distinct places. First, inside several Section 8(1) clauses as part of the definition of the exemption itself (for example, clause (j) asks whether the information has "any relationship to public activity or interest"). Second, and far more powerfully, in Section 8(2) as a free-standing override that applies to every Section 8(1) exemption — including the new 8(1)(j) — when the competent authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest.

-	The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining larger public interest in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120((R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120)) where it was observed as under:	+	The second Section 8(2) override is the one that matters in 2026. It is the one people are told is dead. It is 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="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	//54. The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced...”//	+

-	//55. ……………….When public interest immunity against disclosure of the State documents in the transaction of business by the Council of Ministers of the affairs of State is made, in the clash of those interests, it is the right and duty of the court to weigh the balance in the scales that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service and equally to the administration of justice.”//	+	===== What changed on 14 November 2025 =====

		+	Here is what the DPDP Rules, 2025 actually did to Section 8(1)(j) — and what they did not. This is the whole story, in one paragraph each.

-	In the Indian context, and especially in the context of the RTI Act, 2005, a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be taken note of in understanding the term “public interest”. In ‘S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati((S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati)), in referring to ‘public interest’, maintained: **“Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”**	+	What changed. The text of Section 8(1)(j) was substituted through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force with the notification of the DPDP Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The new text aligns "personal information" with the DPDP Act's definition of personal data. More importantly for practice, the in-clause proviso — the old line that said information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen — has been **removed. That line was an extra shield for applicants; it is gone.**

-	In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212((Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212)), the Apex Court held “the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importamce covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”.	+	What did not change. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act was NOT amended. It still reads exactly as it did before. It still overrides any Section 8(1) exemption where the public-interest-to-disclose outweighs the harm-in-disclosure. It still applies at the First Appellate Authority and Information Commission stages (and at the PIO stage in many readings). And the broader constitutional anchor — Article 19(1)(a) and the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test — is entirely unaffected by the amendment.

-	One of the decisions of the Central Information Commission((Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046, dt. 02.05.2006.)) also throws some light on this term. Public interest includes “**disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability” [in the working of a public authority**]	+	The practical effect? The amendment moved the override out of clause (j) and put the full weight on **Section 8(2). It did not abolish the override. It refocused it. See the full DPDP analysis at [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]] and the current 2026 position at [[:blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].**

-	----	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
-	===== Discuss this topic =====	+	💡 Reality check. "The DPDP killed public interest" is the single most common mistake I hear in 2026 RTI circles. The DPDP did nothing of the sort. It trimmed clause (j), left Section 8(2) standing, and pushed applicants to draft the override plea more carefully. That is all.
		+	</WRAP>

-	~~DISCUSSION~~	+	===== Before and after — the comparison =====

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	^ Aspect ^ Pre-14 November 2025 ^ Post-14 November 2025 (current) ^
		+	\| "Parliament proviso" inside Section 8(1)(j) \| Applied \| Removed \|
		+	\| Section 8(2) free-standing public-interest override \| Applied to all Section 8(1) clauses \| Still applies to all Section 8(1) clauses \|
		+	\| Section 8(1)(j) test for personal information \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" (now aligned with DPDP Act, 2023 definitions) \|
		+	\| Your own record under clause (j) \| Never within 8(1)(j) \| Still never within 8(1)(j) \|
		+	\| Public-interest override routes \| Two (in-clause + 8(2)) \| One (Section 8(2)) \|
		+	\| PIO drafting expectations \| Balance privacy and public good \| Same balance, now cited through Section 8(2) alone \|
		+	\| Constitutional lens \| Article 19(1)(a) + //Puttaswamy// proportionality \| Identical \|

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	The override did not die. The override moved house. Pre-November, you could plead it two ways (inside clause (j) or via Section 8(2)). Now it is a single-route argument — always Section 8(2).

-	[<>]	+	===== Does the override still work in 2026 =====
		+
		+	Yes. Here is what works, and here is what needs sharper drafting than before.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(a) to (i) — override works exactly as before ====
		+
		+	For clauses (a) to (i) — sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary, security, foreign relations, investigation, cabinet papers — nothing has changed. If your request is refused under any of these, plead Section 8(2) and cite the harm vs benefit balance. These clauses were not touched by the DPDP amendment. The //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) reading of the "fiduciary" clause and the //Bhagat Singh// reading of "impedes investigation" — see [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] and [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] — still control.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(j) — override works, but the plea has to be specific ====
		+
		+	On personal information, the Section 8(2) override still runs. What changed is the evidentiary burden. The First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission now expect the applicant to plead the public interest specifically, and at the application stage. A generic "public interest demands it" line is not enough. A specific line — "disclosure of these travel-expense entries is necessary to audit the diversion of public funds from scheme X between these two dates" — is enough.
		+
		+	==== Your own record, and aggregate data — no change at all ====
		+
		+	Requests about your own service record, disciplinary file, or claim were never within 8(1)(j), and still are not. Requests for aggregate or anonymised data (number of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) were never within 8(1)(j) either. The amendment does nothing to these; the refusal rates on these have not moved.
		+
		+	==== What a winning 2026 RTI actually looks like ====
		+
		+	* Works. "Total expenditure on project X between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, file note on sanction dated [Y], names of the signatories on the approval page of the file."
		+	* Fails at first instance, wins on appeal with 8(2) plea. "Certified copy of the travel vouchers of the officer holding charge of project X between the above dates, in the public interest of auditing the disbursement pattern."
		+	* Fails cleanly. "Mr Sharma's salary, phone number, and home address." No public-interest anchor, no public-activity link. Section 8(1)(j) bites.
		+
		+	Copy-paste query templates for the subjects where 8(2) is most often needed live at [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 Draft from a public-activity anchor. The trick that turns a dead-on-arrival personal-data RTI into a live 8(2) appeal is the framing. Anchor the request to a public function — an office, a scheme, a project, a rule, a decision — not to a person. The record about the person follows the office.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins =====
		+
		+	This is the part I spend the most time coaching new applicants on in 2026. There are five moving parts.
		+
		+	- Name the public interest. Not "in the public interest." Say exactly: "accountability in the disbursement of public funds under scheme X", "integrity of the tender process for project Y", "public verification of the functioning of the Vigilance cell in department Z". Specific. One sentence.
		+	- Name the harm you do not cause. Pre-empt the 8(1)(j) shield. "I do not seek the officer's home address, family members' identification, or medical data. I seek the record of their public function in this matter." This moves the PIO off the easy refusal.
		+	- Invoke Section 8(2) on the face of the application. Do not save it for appeal. One line: "If any portion is considered exempt under Section 8(1), I invoke Section 8(2) on the ground stated above."
		+	- Ask for Section 10 severance as a fallback. "If any part of the record is genuinely exempt, I request that the non-exempt portion be released under Section 10 of the Act." This forces the PIO to engage, not to refuse wholesale.
		+	- Keep the request narrow. Name the file. Name the period. Name the office. The narrower the request, the less room for a 7(9) "disproportionate diversion" refusal.
		+
		+	For the full drafting pattern across twelve subjects, see [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]]. For the ten most common drafting mistakes, see [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]]. For appeal drafting, see [[:templates:first-appeal\|Template: first appeal]] and [[:templates:second-appeal\|Template: second appeal]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 The line that moves a 2026 appeal. On the first appeal, I have found this one sentence does most of the work: //"The First Appellate Authority is invited to record a finding under Section 8(2) that the public interest in disclosure of the record sought — to enable public audit of expenditure under the named scheme — outweighs any privacy harm, which is not substantial as the record relates to the exercise of a public function."// Adapt it to your facts. It works more often than not.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Court and Commission rulings =====
		+
		+	The working jurisprudence on public interest is stable. Three anchor rulings do most of the weight-lifting. Newer rulings apply them to new fact patterns.
		+
		+	^ Year ^ Case ^ What it did ^
		+	\| 2011 \| [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] \| Established that disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception; file notings are information \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande]] \| ACRs and property returns generally exempt under 8(1)(j); but "larger public interest" can override \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam v. Kerala]] \| Narrowed "substantially financed"; coops outside RTI unless substantial funding \|
		+	\| 2016 \| [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] \| Fiduciary clause 8(1)(e) read narrowly; regulator is not a fiduciary of the regulated \|
		+	\| 2017 \| [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy]] \| Privacy is a fundamental right; proportionality test applies to any State limitation \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|//Electoral Bonds// (ADR)]] \| Voter's right to know political funding under Article 19(1)(a); transparency is constitutional \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:blog:delhi-hc-phd-theses-rti-ruling-2024\|Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses ruling]] \| Theses at publicly-funded universities disclosable; Section 8(1)(j) read narrowly; severance is the answer \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC on public servants' assets]] \| Annual Property Returns disclosable with specific public-interest plea via Section 8(2) \|
		+
		+	Post-November 2025 orders continue to apply the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test. The [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply analysis]] tracks the drafting register of compliant denials. As of April 2026, a few writ petitions are reported pending in Delhi and Madras High Courts testing the constitutionality of the DPDP substitution of clause (j). None has resulted in a reported stay; the substitution operates as law.
		+
		+	===== Stakeholder impact =====
		+
		+	^ Stakeholder ^ What changed for you ^ What to do today ^
		+	\| Citizen \| Plead Section 8(2) at the application stage; don't rely on the old in-clause proviso \| Anchor requests to a public function, not a person \|
		+	\| Public Information Officer \| Must test the 8(2) plea on the record's facts; cannot boilerplate-refuse \| Pass a reasoned order per Section 7(8); invoke Section 10 severance where possible \|
		+	\| First Appellate Authority \| Expect more 8(2) pleas; apply proportionality, don't rubber-stamp \| [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|FAA guide]] + [[:templates:faa-speaking-order\|speaking order template]] \|
		+	\| Information Commission \| First wave of orders under new 8(1)(j) shaping the expectations \| Publish reasoned orders for precedent value \|
		+	\| Researcher \| Published records and case law — unchanged; internal drafts — narrower \| Shift more to gazette + final orders; use Shodhganga for %%PhD%% theses \|
		+	\| Activist \| Documented refusals now feed any constitutional challenge \| Share refusals via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] \|
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	^ Question ^ Short answer ^
		+	\| Did the DPDP amendment kill the public-interest override? \| No. It removed the in-clause proviso within Section 8(1)(j). The stand-alone Section 8(2) override is unchanged and still applies. \|
		+	\| Can I still get someone's salary via RTI? \| Only if the public interest in that salary clearly outweighs the privacy harm. Anchor it to a public function (misuse of a sanction, disproportionate assets enquiry). A bare salary request without that anchor fails under 8(1)(j). \|
		+	\| Do I need to say "Section 8(2)" in my application? \| Yes. Specifically name the clause and name the public interest. Vague language is the main reason 8(2) pleas fail at first instance. \|
		+	\| What about ACRs and property returns? \| //Girish Deshpande// still controls. Generally exempt under 8(1)(j); disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. See the [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande page]] and the [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC direction]]. \|
		+	\| Has the Supreme Court ruled on the DPDP substitution? \| As of April 2026, writ petitions are pending in High Courts. No binding Supreme Court ruling on the substitution yet. \|
		+	\| Can my own record be refused under 8(1)(j)? \| No. Your own information was never within 8(1)(j), and is not now. \|
		+	\| Does Section 8(2) apply at the PIO stage or only on appeal? \| The text of Section 8(2) does not limit the stage; it applies wherever a 8(1) exemption is being considered. In practice, many PIOs apply it; if not, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission certainly do. \|
		+	\| What if the PIO refuses without citing any 8(1) clause at all? \| That refusal itself is defective under Section 7(8). File a first appeal on that ground. A bare "confidential" is not a valid refusal. \|
		+	\| How is the proportionality test applied? \| Identify the public interest; identify the privacy harm; ask whether there is a less restrictive alternative (often Section 10 severance); conclude. See the [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|Puttaswamy]] framework. \|
		+	\| Where can I share a refusal I've received? \| Via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] — post in the discussion on any relevant page. \|
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Filing right now?
		+	* New to RTI? Start at [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 step-by-step]].
		+	* Need a template? Copy one from [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* Refused already? Read [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]] and grab the [[:templates:first-appeal\|first-appeal template]].
		+	* Got a PIO refusal worth studying? Share it in the discussion at the bottom of this page via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related on this site =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]], Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	* [[:act/summary\|RTI Act summary, sections, and notes]].
		+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection — concept note]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy\|Privacy under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy of public servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability — Section 10]].
		+	* [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|Fiduciary relationship — Section 8(1)(e)]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment]].
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].
		+	* [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
		+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions]].
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]].
		+	* [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* [[:state-vs-central-rti\|State RTI vs Central RTI]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== 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]]
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
		+	- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
		+	- //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+	- //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
		+	- //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
		+	- //Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India// (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
		+	- //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner//, W.P. (C) 3114/2007, Delhi High Court.
		+	- Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to %%PhD%% theses, December 2024.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	20 April 2026. Post-DPDP Section 8(2) jurisprudence still unfolding; watch the High Court writ petitions challenging the clause-(j) substitution.
		+
		+	{{tag>rti public-interest section-8-2 section-8-1-j dpdp-2025 2026 current-position explanations}}

-	~~LINKBACK~~
-	~~socialite~~

Justification for Denial is Mandatory — Speaking Order Requirement

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:40:11 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Justification for Denial of Information is mandatory ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(justification for denial rti, section 7 8 rti, speaking order rti, pio reasons for denial, rti refusal reasons, rti denial speaking order, non-speaking rti reply)
-	{{like>}} {{tag>CIC,denial of information, decisions,}}	+	metatag-description=(Every RTI denial must be a reasoned, speaking order citing the specific sub-clause. RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference, 2026.)}}
-	===== Central Information Commission 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>	+

-	- Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.(({{ :explanations:decision_07072006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006}}))	+	====== Justification for Denial is Mandatory — Speaking Order Requirement ======
-	- The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.(({{ :explanations:decision_30082006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.}}))	+
-	- Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………(({{ :explanations:cic_bs_a_2013_000681_4968_m_130757.pdf \|CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014}}))	+

-	===== Court Decisions =====	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-justification-for-denial-under-rti.png?direct&1200 \|Justification for Denial is Mandatory — Speaking Order Requirement — RTI Wiki}}
-	<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>	+

-	- “6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case ………….”(({{ :explanations:delhi_high_court.pdf \|Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010}}))	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
-	- “If no reasons are given in the appellate orders, then it is injustice to the natural justice because quasi judicial obligations are giving reasons for order, since justice is not expected to wear the inscrutable face of a sphinx”((Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ibrahim Kunju v. State of Kerala AIR 1970 Ker 65))	+
-	- “12………As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein. 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, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information”((HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007))	+	In one line: Under [[:act#section-7disposal-of-request\|Section 7(8)]] of the RTI Act, 2005, a Public Information Officer who denies any part of an RTI request must state in writing: the specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9 relied upon, the reasons for the denial applied to //your// facts, and the name, address, and appeal period for approaching the First Appellate Authority. A reply that fails any of these is a non-speaking order and is appealable on that ground alone.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(5)]] places the burden of proving that a denial is justified on the PIO, not the applicant. An applicant does not have to show why information //should// be disclosed — the presumption is disclosure. This inversion of the ordinary rule is built into the Act and binds every Information Commission.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Legal Basis =====
		+
		+	* [[:act#section-7disposal-of-request\|Section 7(8)]] — if rejecting, the PIO must state (i) reasons, (ii) period within which appeal lies, (iii) particulars of the First Appellate Authority.
		+	* [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(5)]] — onus to prove that a denial was justified lies with the PIO.
		+	* [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(8)(b)]] — Commission can require compliance if the refusal was unreasoned.
		+	* [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20]] — Rs 25,000 penalty if denial was malicious, unreasonable, or persistently delayed.
		+
		+	===== What counts as a "speaking order" =====
		+
		+	A speaking order on an RTI denial has five mandatory elements:
		+
		+	- The specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9 invoked — e.g., "Section 8(1)(j)" not just "Section 8".
		+	- Why that sub-clause applies to //these// facts — e.g., "the record names a private individual whose information, if disclosed, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, as explained in //Girish Deshpande//".
		+	- Whether severance under [[:explanations:severability\|Section 10]] was considered — and if rejected, why.
		+	- Whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) was weighed — and the conclusion.
		+	- Appellate details — name, designation, address, and the 30-day appeal window.
		+
		+	===== Common non-speaking refusal patterns (and the defeat) =====
		+
		+	^ Refusal phrase ^ Why it fails ^
		+	\| "Denied under Section 8" \| No sub-clause = non-speaking order. Appealable on that ground alone. \|
		+	\| "Confidential" \| "Confidential" is not a ground under the Act. The PIO must map it to a statutory clause. \|
		+	\| "Please see Rule 6 of Department Rules" \| Rules cannot override the Act. Only Section 8, 9 or 24 provide exemption. \|
		+	\| "The information is with another officer" \| Section 5(4) and 5(5) make the PIO responsible. Not a ground of denial. \|
		+	\| "File is voluminous" \| //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// — Section 7(9) allows change of form, not refusal. \|
		+	\| "Personal information" (bare) \| 8(1)(j) requires a //proportionality// and //public-activity// analysis post DPDP 2025. \|
		+	\| "Cabinet paper" \| Only 8(1)(i) applies. Not a catch-all for every ministerial file. \|
		+
		+	===== Sample appeal wording =====
		+
		+	When filing a first appeal under [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(1)]], use this paragraph:
		+
		+	<code>
		+	The Public Information Officer's reply dated [X] does not
		+	comply with Section 7(8) of the RTI Act. The reply does not
		+	cite a specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9, does not
		+	apply any provision to the facts of this case, and does not
		+	consider severance under Section 10 or the public interest
		+	override under Section 8(2). Per Section 19(5), the burden of
		+	proving that the denial is justified lies on the PIO, and in
		+	the absence of a speaking order, the denial must be set aside
		+	and the information directed to be disclosed in full.
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== Landmark rulings =====
		+
		+	* //Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur//, (2011) 15 SCC 1 — PIO must apply mind to each request individually; blanket refusals are unsustainable.
		+	* //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345 — Information Commissions have a supervisory duty to ensure PIOs issue reasoned orders.
		+	* //Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC (2007) — Section 8(1)(h) requires the PIO to show how disclosure would //impede// an investigation; bare assertion is not enough.
		+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — the PIO cannot refuse on volume; Section 7(9) permits only change of form.
		+
		+	===== Step-by-step action plan =====
		+
		+	- Read the PIO's reply against the five-element checklist above.
		+	- Identify which elements are missing — sub-clause, application to facts, severance analysis, public interest, appellate details.
		+	- File a first appeal within 30 days using the template above.
		+	- Request both remedies in the appeal: (a) set aside the non-speaking order; (b) direct disclosure on merit.
		+	- If the FAA's order is also non-speaking, file a second appeal under [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(3)]] to the CIC or SIC within 90 days.
		+	- Prayer for penalty — include Section 20 prayer for wilful refusal if this is the PIO's pattern across multiple cases.
		+
		+	===== Pro-Tip: The 5-question audit =====
		+
		+	Before filing the first appeal, run the PIO's reply through this 5-question audit:
		+
		+	- Did they name the sub-clause?
		+	- Did they apply it to the facts?
		+	- Did they consider severance?
		+	- Did they weigh public interest?
		+	- Did they provide FAA details?
		+
		+	For every "No", you have an appealable ground. Most denials fail at least two of the five.
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	==== What if the PIO gives only a partial reply without reasons for the withheld portion? ====
		+
		+	Partial disclosure without reasons for the withheld portion violates [[:act#section-10severability\|Section 10(1)]] which //requires// that the reasons and findings be recorded. Appealable on both Section 7(8) and Section 10(1) grounds.
		+
		+	==== Can I ask the PIO to cite case law in the reply? ====
		+
		+	Yes — and this is a good strategic move. Request in your RTI: //"If any exemption is claimed, kindly cite the specific sub-clause, the reasons applied to these facts, and the case law relied upon."// Raises the cost of a bad refusal.
		+
		+	==== What if the reply says "the information is already on the website"? ====
		+
		+	Section 4(2) encourages suo motu disclosure, but if the link doesn't reach the specific information requested, this is a non-speaking response. Ask for the direct URL or file number.
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	Audit any RTI refusal you have received against the 5-question checklist above. If it fails any one, use the appeal paragraph above and file under [[:templates:first-appeal\|the First Appeal template]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
		+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection — Section 8 and 9]]
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability — Section 10]]
		+	* [[:explanations:public-interest\|Public interest override — Section 8(2)]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI applications get rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP 2025]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 7(8), 19(5), 19(8)(b), 20.
		+	- //Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur//, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
		+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345.
		+	- //Bhagat Singh v. CIC and Ors.//, Delhi High Court (2007).
		+	- //CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-7 section-19 speaking-order denial practice}}

-	This article is inspired from the original post made by J.P. Shah in the blog post [[https://jps50.blogspot.in/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html\|here]]!
-	~~socialite~~

Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5) Explained

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:02:02 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{keywords>pio,cpio,deemed pio}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(deemed cpio rti, section 5 5 rti, deemed pio, rti section 5 4, cpio responsibility rti, assistance under rti)
-	====== Deemed PIO ======	+	metatag-description=(Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5) Explained - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest amendments.)}}
-	{{tag>Section-5, PIO}}	+
-	{{like>}}	+
-	Deemed Public Information Officer	+

-	As per Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the [[act:\|Right to Information Act 2005]]	+	====== Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5) Explained ======
-	===== Who is Deemed PIO =====	+

-	The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-deemed-cpio.png?direct&1200 \|Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5) Explained — RTI Wiki}}
-	THe officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be for the purpose of contravention of the provisions of the Act.	+
-	===== Can CPIO designate another person as PIO =====	+
-	<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>	+
-	The Act enables the PIO to seek assistance of any other officer to enable him to provide information to the information seeker, but it does not give him authority to designate any other officer as PIO and direct him to send reply to the applicant.	+

-	The PIO disposes his responsibility and liability in terms of his duties under the Act, as soon as he seeks the information from the relevant officers. The PIO should send a written note or email for the information required by a RTI application to an appropriate officer who has the relevant information. The PIO can even send this communication to a senior officer. This should be done within one or two days of receiving the RTI application. In that case, any failure or penal provisions would be attracted by the other officer, often called ‘deemed PIO’. It would be advisable for the head of the office to identify the deemed PIOs holding various categories of information, by an internal order. This would make it easy for the PIO to direct the queries to the right person and eliminate ambiguity.	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	This provision envisages that not just the PIO but anybody or everybody who holds information has a duty to provide information under this Act. This is an important provision which underlines the responsibility of the entire Public Authority and all its officers to facilitate access to information to the citizen. If public authorities follow the provisions of Section 4 properly, it would be easy for the PIO to provide the information.	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	===== What procedure to follow in case of deemed PIO =====	+	In one line: [[:act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|Section 5(5)]] of the RTI Act makes every officer whose assistance the CPIO seeks deemed to be a CPIO for the purposes of that request. The deemed-CPIO is personally liable for delays and refusals in the portion they handle. Combined with [[:act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|Section 5(4)]] (which makes the CPIO himself responsible for obtaining the record), this kills the "file is with another officer" excuse.
		+	</WRAP>

-	The import of sub-section (5) of section 5 is that, if the officer whose assistance is sought by the PIO, does not render necessary help to him, the Information Commission may impose penalty on such officer or recommend disciplinary action against him the same way as the may impose penalty on or recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.(({{:explanations:deemed-cpio.pdf\|CIC OM No: 1/14/2008-IR dated 28th July 2008 titled: Clarifications regarding Sub-Section (4) and (5) of the Right to Information Act 2005}}))	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
-	<html>	+	Did you know? When you file a Section 20 penalty petition, the Commission can impose the penalty on the deemed CPIO directly — not the designated CPIO. Naming the right officer in your appeal matters. Always ask for the file-movement register to identify who actually sat on your request.
-	<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>	+
-	----	+
-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}	+	===== Legal Basis =====
		+
		+	* [[:act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|Section 5(4)]] — CPIO may seek assistance of any other officer considered necessary for the proper discharge of duties.
		+	* [[:act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|Section 5(5)]] — //"Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer … and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer."//
		+	* [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20]] — penalty up to Rs 25,000 on the erring officer; payable personally, not from department funds.
		+
		+	===== How the deemed CPIO rule works in practice =====
		+
		+	A typical RTI journey through an office:
		+
		+	- Applicant files RTI with the designated CPIO at a Ministry (Level 1).
		+	- Designated CPIO transfers the file to the dealing officer at the directorate (Level 2).
		+	- Dealing officer seeks inputs from the technical section (Level 3).
		+	- The technical section sits on the file for 20 days.
		+
		+	Under Section 5(5), the technical section's officer becomes a deemed CPIO for this request. If the 30-day deadline is missed, the Commission can impose the penalty on that officer, not on the Level 1 CPIO. Accountability flows to where the delay happened.
		+
		+	===== Counter to "file is with another officer" =====
		+
		+	A very common non-reply. Reply or appeal paragraph:
		+
		+	<code>
		+	Under Section 5(4), the CPIO is responsible for obtaining
		+	the file from any officer who holds it. Under Section 5(5),
		+	any officer whose assistance the CPIO has sought is deemed
		+	to be a CPIO and is personally liable for delays under
		+	Section 20. The CPIO is directed to obtain the file within
		+	seven working days and reply in full. Alternatively, the
		+	deemed-CPIO may be summoned to explain the delay to the
		+	First Appellate Authority.
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== Sample RTI wording to expose the chain =====
		+
		+	Include this in follow-up requests to identify who is sitting on the file:
		+
		+	<code>
		+	1. A copy of the file movement register entry for my RTI
		+	application no. [X] dated [date], showing every officer
		+	who received the file, the date of receipt, and the date
		+	of onward transmission.
		+
		+	2. The name and designation of every deemed Central Public
		+	Information Officer under Section 5(5) in respect of this
		+	request, along with the dates each officer held the file.
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== Landmark rulings =====
		+
		+	* //CIC Decision No. F.No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00163// — deemed CPIO under Section 5(5) liable for personal penalty when information delayed.
		+	* //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345 — PIOs must apply mind and record reasons; supervisory duty extends down the chain.
		+	* DoPT Circular F.No.1/8/2007-IR — clarifies Section 5(5) liability.
		+
		+	===== Step-by-step action plan =====
		+
		+	- Identify the designated CPIO for the public authority.
		+	- On delay or unreasonable reply, file the first appeal naming both the CPIO and any deemed CPIO (use the file-movement register).
		+	- In the second appeal, include a specific Section 20 prayer against the deemed CPIO.
		+	- Commission will summon the officer for a personal hearing; penalty follows if the delay is not satisfactorily explained.
		+
		+	===== Pro-Tip =====
		+
		+	Include a parallel request under [[:explanations:transfer-application\|Section 6(3) transfer]] when filing. Under Section 6(3), the CPIO has five working days to transfer to the correct public authority. Failure to transfer in time compounds with the Section 5(5) liability.
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	==== Can a deemed CPIO refuse on exemption grounds on their own? ====
		+
		+	No. The designated CPIO is the one who issues the order. The deemed CPIO can recommend but not refuse. A refusal by a deemed CPIO without the designated CPIO's order is itself an appealable ground.
		+
		+	==== Who pays the penalty — the officer or the department? ====
		+
		+	The officer pays personally. [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20]] is worded as a personal liability. The department cannot reimburse.
		+
		+	==== How do I prove who had the file? ====
		+
		+	Ask for the file movement register in your RTI (wording above). Every government office maintains it. It shows date in, date out, officer name for every movement of every file.
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	When you receive a delay or vague refusal, ask for the file-movement register by a fresh RTI. Then name the deemed CPIO in your first appeal using the template above. See [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
		+	* [[:explanations:transfer-application\|Transfer of application — Section 6(3)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious liability and Section 20]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:templates:second-appeal\|Second Appeal template]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 5(4), 5(5), 20.
		+	- DoPT Circular F.No.1/8/2007-IR dated 15 May 2008.
		+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-5 deemed-cpio section-20 practice}}

-	[<>]
-	~~socialite~~

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~~

Citizenship under RTI Act 2005

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

	[<>]		[<>]
		+

File Notings under RTI — What They Are and How to Get Them

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	{{keywords>file notings}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(file notings rti, file noting rti act, file notings disclosure, rti file noting section 2f, cpio file noting, cic file notings 2008, dopt file notings, rti file noting rules)
-	====== File Notings under RTI Act ======	+	metatag-description=(File notings are disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005. A 2026 practitioner note on Section 2(f), the CIC's 2008 direction, DoPT's position, and how to draft an RTI.)}}
-	{{tag>file-notings,disclosures}}	+
-	{{like>}}	+

		+	====== File Notings under RTI — What They Are and How to Get Them ======

-	As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009(({{:explanations:file-noting-disclosure-rti.pdf\|DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009}}: Disclosure of 'file noting' under the Right to Information Act, 2005.)), file noting can be disclosed except file noting containing information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-file-notings.png?direct&1200 \|File Notings under RTI — What They Are and How to Get Them — RTI Wiki}}

-	Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information’ which includes ‘record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'.	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
-	<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>	+
-	In Central Information Commission(CIC) Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”.	+

-	Thus, file notings can be disclosed under the Act.	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line: A "file noting" is an entry made by an officer on a government file while examining a matter. The Central Information Commission held in 2008 that file notings are "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and therefore disclosable. File notings are often the most valuable part of an RTI response because they record //why// a decision was taken.
		+	</WRAP>

-	{(rater>id=1\|name=File Notings under RTI\|type=rate)}	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	Did you know? Before 2008, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) circulated a note that file notings were //not// disclosable. The Central Information Commission, in //Satyapal v. TCIL// and follow-on orders, held the opposite. The CIC's direction binds all Central public authorities; DoPT's contrary note was withdrawn.
		+	</WRAP>

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	===== Legal Basis =====
		+
		+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(f)]] — "information" includes //any material in any form//, specifically records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body.
		+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(i)]] — "record" includes any document, manuscript, and file.
		+	* [[:act#section-7disposal-of-request\|Section 7]] — 30-day reply window covers file notings equally.
		+	* [[:act#section-8exemption-from-disclosure-of-information\|Section 8]] — the PIO can sever notings that are genuinely exempt (e.g., Cabinet papers under 8(1)(i), security under 8(1)(a)), but cannot refuse the file-noting trail wholesale.
		+
		+	===== What a file noting looks like =====
		+
		+	On a physical file, the left side holds correspondences; the right side holds the noting sheets. Each officer who handles the file writes a dated, signed note. A decision file typically has:
		+
		+	* An initial "put-up" note by the dealing officer with facts and options.
		+	* Sequential notes by superiors agreeing, disagreeing, or adding conditions.
		+	* The final approving note, sometimes with "Approved as proposed" or a modified direction.
		+	* Any post-decision notes on compliance, adjournment, or review.
		+
		+	The notings are therefore the decision diary. Missing them is missing the reason for the decision.
		+
		+	===== 7 Drafting Strategies to Compel the File Notings =====
		+
		+	Use this wording in your RTI under [[:act#section-6request-for-obtaining-information\|Section 6]]:
		+
		+	<code>
		+	1. A copy of the complete file noting, including all sheets
		+	on the noting side of file no. [X], in the matter of [Y],
		+	between [start date] and [end date], with every officer's
		+	name, designation, and date shown on each note.
		+
		+	2. Certified copies of all inter-departmental communications
		+	referenced in the file notings above.
		+
		+	3. Under Section 10, if any portion of the notings attracts a
		+	Section 8 or Section 9 exemption, kindly sever and disclose
		+	the remainder, giving reasons for each exemption.
		+
		+	4. A copy of the file movement register entry for file no. [X]
		+	showing its movement between officers during the period.
		+	</code>
		+
		+	===== The PIO's playbook — and how to defeat each move =====
		+
		+	^ PIO move ^ Counter ^
		+	\| "File notings are confidential" \| Cite CIC's 2008 direction and //Satyapal v. TCIL//. File notings are information under Section 2(f). \|
		+	\| "Only the final order, not the notings, is disclosable" \| Section 2(f) includes //opinions// and //advices//; file notings are precisely that. \|
		+	\| "Cabinet decision — Section 8(1)(i)" \| 8(1)(i) protects Cabinet papers. File notings of lower-level officers on //implementation// are not Cabinet. \|
		+	\| "Personal information of officers — Section 8(1)(j)" \| An officer's recorded note on an official decision is public activity, not personal information. \|
		+	\| "File is missing" \| Demand the FIR on the missing file + the officer responsible. See [[:explanations:missing-files-under-rti\|Missing files under RTI]]. \|
		+	\| "Would disproportionately divert resources — Section 7(9)" \| Per //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, 7(9) allows //change of form// (inspection), not refusal. \|
		+
		+	===== Landmark rulings =====
		+
		+	* //Satyapal v. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd.//, CIC Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00113 (31 Jan 2007; reaffirmed 2008) — file notings are "information" under Section 2(f).
		+	* DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2012 — clarified that file notings are to be disclosed subject to Section 8 exemptions. Contradicts any earlier circular suggesting blanket secrecy.
		+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — scope of "information" is broad; Section 7(9) does not permit refusal, only change of form.
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212 read with the DPDP 2025 amendment — personal-information exemption narrowed; file notings on public duties remain disclosable.
		+
		+	===== Step-by-step action plan =====
		+
		+	- Identify the matter — what decision are you asking about. Frame the RTI as a request for the noting trail.
		+	- Know the file number — if possible. If not, open with an RTI asking for the file number on your application, then a follow-up RTI asking for the notings.
		+	- Specify the date range — narrows the request and reduces refusal risk.
		+	- Add the Section 10 severance clause — preempts a "part exempt, whole refused" move.
		+	- Add a file-movement request — this reveals who had the file when, useful for deemed-CPIO claims under [[:explanations:deemed-cpio\|Section 5(5)]].
		+	- Submit and diarise 30 days.
		+	- On refusal, file a first appeal under [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(1)]] within 30 days, citing the authorities above.
		+
		+	===== Pro-Tip: Ask for the "file-tour" =====
		+
		+	Always add a request for //inspection of the file// under [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(j)(i)]]. Officers quote "voluminous" on photocopy requests; on inspection, the first hour is free and you can mark the specific pages for certified copies at Rs 2 per A4. See the [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|inspection procedure]] for the full counter-strategy playbook.
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	==== Can the PIO redact officer names? ====
		+
		+	No, not routinely. The officer's name and designation on an official noting is part of public activity. Redaction can be claimed only if there is a specific threat to personal safety or the record is part of a disciplinary proceeding where the officer's identity needs protection under Section 8(1)(g).
		+
		+	==== Are draft notings disclosable? ====
		+
		+	Drafts are normally not placed on the file. If they are on the file, they are disclosable. A "draft" held separately by an officer's personal notebook is not a file record and is outside the Act.
		+
		+	==== What about notings older than 20 years? ====
		+
		+	[[:act#section-8exemption-from-disclosure-of-information\|Section 8(3)]] overrides most exemptions after 20 years (except Cabinet papers, sovereignty-security matters, and fiduciary relationships). Old notings on policy matters often become disclosable by operation of law.
		+
		+	==== Do file notings cover electronic records? ====
		+
		+	Yes. Section 2(f) covers electronic records explicitly. Email trails, e-office notings, and digital approvals are all file notings.
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	Draft your RTI using the template above. Add the inspection clause, the severance clause, and the file-movement request. For the full first-RTI template, see [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]. For the rejection playbook, see [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:information\|Information under RTI — Section 2(f) scope]]
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability under Section 10]]
		+	* [[:explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti\|Justification for denial — Section 7(8)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:missing-files-under-rti\|Missing files under RTI]]
		+	* [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|Procedure for inspection — Section 2(j)(i)]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(f), 2(i), 6, 7, 8, 10, 19.
		+	- //Satyapal v. TCIL//, CIC Decision No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00113.
		+	- DoPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/20/2009-IR dated 2 August 2012.
		+	- //CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations file-notings section-2f section-10 practice cic}}

-	[<>]
-	~~socialite~~

Suo Motu Disclosure under Section 4 — The Proactive Duty

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/02/05 04:52		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Suo Moto Disclosure under RTI ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(suo motu disclosure rti, section 4 rti act, proactive disclosure rti, section 4 1 b rti, 17 categories rti, rti website information, rti section 4 non compliance, section 18 complaint rti)
-	{{tag>SuoMoto, Disclosure, Section4}}{{like>}}	+	metatag-description=(Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 requires every public authority to publish 17 categories of information on its own, without an RTI application.)}}

-	Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act lays down the information which should be disclosed by Public Authorities on a suo motu or proactive basis. Section 4(2) and Section 4(3) prescribe the method of dissemination of this information. The purpose of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 is to place large amount of information in public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the Public Authorities more transparent and also to reduce the need for filing individual RTI applications.	+	====== Suo Motu Disclosure under Section 4 — The Proactive Duty ======

-	- Proactive disclosure should be done in the local language so that it remains accessible to public.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-suo-moto-disclosure-under-rti.png?direct&1200 \|Suo Motu Disclosure under RTI — RTI Wiki}}
-	- It should be presented in a form that is easily understood and if technical words are used they should be carefully explained.	+
-	- As provided in section 4, disclosure should be made in as many mediums as feasible and disclosures should be kept up to date.	+
-	- The disclosure of Information may be made keeping in mind the provisions of Section 8 to 11 of the RTI Act.	+

-	===== Guidelines on suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act =====	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
-	==== Information related to Procurement ====	+

-	Information relating to procurement made by Public Authorities including publication of notice/tender enquiries, corrigenda thereon, and details of bid awards detailing the name of the supplier of goods/services being procured or the works contracts entered or any such combination of these and the rate and total amount at which such procurement or works contract is to be done should be disclosed. All information disclosable as per Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure's O.M. No 10/1/2011-PPC dated 30th November, 2011 on Mandatory Publication of Tender Enquiries on the Central Public Procurement Portal and O.M. No. 10/3/2012- PPC dated 30th March, 2012 on Implementation of comprehensive end-to-end e-procurement should be disclosed under Section 4. At present the limit is fixed at Rs. 10.00 lakhs. In case of procurements made through DGS&D Rate Contracts or through Kendriya Bhandar/ NCCF, only award details need to be published. However information about procurement which fall within the purview of Section 8 of the RTI Act would be exempt.	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	==== Public Private Partnerships ====	+	In one line: [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4]] of the RTI Act, 2005 requires every public authority to publish 17 categories of information on its own, without waiting for an RTI application. The disclosure must be in electronic form where possible, in the local language, and updated at least once a year. If a department fails, a citizen can (a) file an RTI for the same information under Section 6, or (b) file a complaint under [[:act#section-18powers-and-functions-of-information-commissions\|Section 18]] with the Information Commission.
		+	</WRAP>

-	{{ :explanations:adobe_spark_7_.jpg \|}}	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? The Supreme Court observed in //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345, that good Section 4 compliance would eliminate up to 70 percent of RTI applications. Non-compliance is therefore not a minor lapse — it is the single largest avoidable cause of Commission backlog.
		+	</WRAP>

-	If Public services are proposed to be provided through a Public Private Partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the Public Authority entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement. This may include details of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), if any set up, detailed project reports, concession agreements, operation and maintenance manuals and other documents generated as part of the implementation of the PPP project. The documents under the ambit of the exemption from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be disclosed suo motu. Further, information about fees, tolls, or other kinds of revenue that may be collected under authorization from the Government, information in respect of outputs and outcomes, process of selection of the private sector party may also be proactively disclosed. All payments made under the PPP project may also be disclosed in a periodic manner along with the purpose of making such payment.	+	===== The 3-stage flow =====

-	==== Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders ====	+	{{ :infographics/suo-moto-flow.png?direct&1000 \|Section 4 Suo Motu Disclosure — 3-stage flow}}

-	Transfer policy for different grades/cadres of employees serving in Public Authority should be proactively disclosed. All transfer orders should be publicized through the website or in any other manner listed in Section 4(4) of the Act. These guidelines would not be applicable in cases of transfers made keeping in view sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State and the exemptions covered under Section 8 of the Act. These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organizations under the second schedule of the RTI Act.	+	===== Legal basis =====

-	==== RTI Applications ====	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(1)(b)]] — 17 categories of information every public authority must publish.
-	<html>	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(1)(c)]] — publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(1)(d)]] — provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(2)]] — endeavour to disseminate proactively so that citizens need minimum recourse to formal requests.
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(3)]] — disseminate through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media, internet, or any other means.
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+	* [[:act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|Section 4(4)]] — all dissemination //"at reasonable cost of the medium in local language"//.
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

		+	===== The 17 mandatory categories (Section 4(1)(b)) =====

-	All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words. RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to the personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, as they do not serve any public interest.	+	^ # ^ Category ^ Think of it as ^
		+	\| 1 \| Particulars of the organisation, functions and duties \| What the department is and does \|
		+	\| 2 \| Powers and duties of officers and employees \| Who can decide what \|
		+	\| 3 \| Procedure followed in decision-making, including channels of supervision \| The paper trail of decisions \|
		+	\| 4 \| Norms set for the discharge of functions \| Service-delivery standards \|
		+	\| 5 \| Rules, regulations, instructions, manuals, records \| The department's internal rulebook \|
		+	\| 6 \| Categories of documents held or under control \| What files exist, by category \|
		+	\| 7 \| Arrangements for consultation with members of the public \| How citizens' views are sought \|
		+	\| 8 \| Boards, councils, committees and other bodies — with minutes accessible \| Who advises the department \|
		+	\| 9 \| Directory of officers and employees \| Name and designation list \|
		+	\| 10 \| Monthly remuneration (pay scales, compensation system) \| What officers are paid \|
		+	\| 11 \| Budget allocated to each agency, plans, proposed expenditure, disbursements \| The money map \|
		+	\| 12 \| Manner of execution of subsidy programmes \| Subsidy mechanics \|
		+	\| 13 \| Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations \| Who gets benefits from the State \|
		+	\| 14 \| Information available in an electronic form \| What is on the website or database \|
		+	\| 15 \| Particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information \| Reading rooms, citizen-charter centres \|
		+	\| 16 \| Names, designations and particulars of Public Information Officers \| Who to contact for RTI \|
		+	\| 17 \| Such other information as may be prescribed \| Additional items by rule \|

-	==== CAG & PAC paras ====	+	===== When suo motu disclosure is missing — your enforcement moves =====

-	Public Authorities may proactively disclose the CAG & PAC paras and the Action Taken Reports (ATRs) only after these have been laid on the table of both the houses of the Parliament. However, CAG paras dealing with information about the issues of sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State and information covered under Section 8 of the RTI Act would be exempt.	+	==== Move 1 — File a Section 6 RTI ====
-	==== Citizens Charter ====	+

-	Citizens Charter prepared by the Ministry/Department, as part of the Result Framework Document of the department/organization should be proactively disclosed and six monthly report on the performance against the benchmarks set in Citizens Charter should also be displayed on the website of public authorities.	+	Frame the request precisely:

-		+	<code>
-	==== Discretionary and Non-discretionary grants ====	+	Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, I request:
-	<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>	+

-	All discretionary /non-discretionary grants/ allocations to state governments/ NGOs/Other institutions by Ministry/Department should be placed on the website of the Ministry/Department concerned. Annual Accounts of all legal entities who are provided grants by Public Authorities should be made available through publication, directly or indirectly on the Public Authority's website. Disclosures would be subject to provisions of Section 8 to 11 of the RTI Act.	+	1. A copy of the information required to be published under
		+	Section 4(1)(b), sub-clauses (i) to (xvii), as they stand
		+	for the [department name] as on [date].

-	==== Foreign Tours of PM/Ministers ====	+	2. The date(s) on which the above information was last updated
		+	on the department's website, with the URL(s).

		+	3. A copy of the complete file noting on the decision to not
		+	publish, if any category is deliberately withheld.
		+	</code>

-	A large number of RTI queries are being filed on official tours undertaken by Ministers or officials of various Government Ministries/Departments. Information regarding the nature, place and period of foreign and domestic tours of Prime Minister are already disclosed on the PMO's website.	+	==== Move 2 — File a Section 18 complaint ====

-	As per DoPT's OM No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11/9/2012, Public Authorities may proactively disclose the details of foreign and domestic official tours undertaken by the Minister(s) and officials of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above and Heads of Departments, since 1st January, 2012. The disclosures may be updated once every quarter.	+	If the RTI itself is refused or delayed, complaint to the Information Commission:

-	Information to be disclosed proactively may contain nature of the official tour, places visited, the period, number of people included in the official delegation and total cost of such travel undertaken. Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be kept in view while disclosing the information. These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organisations under the second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and CVOs of public authoritiy	+	<code>
		+	Complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 against
		+	[department name] for systemic non-compliance with Section 4.

-	===== Guidelines for digital publication of proactive disclosure under Section 4 =====	+	(i) Section 4(1)(b) requires publication of 17 categories.
		+	(ii) An inspection of the department's website on [date]
		+	shows [X] categories missing or over a year out of date.
		+	(iii) An RTI application dated [Y] sought the same information;
		+	the reply was [refused / silent].
		+	(iv) The Commission is requested to direct publication under
		+	Section 19(8)(a)(i)-(vi), with a monthly progress report
		+	until full compliance.
		+	</code>

-	Section 4 lays down that information should be provided through many mediums depending upon the level of the public authority and the recipient of information (for example, in case of Panchayat, wall painting may be more effective means of dissemination of information), and that more and more proactive disclosure would gradually be made through Internet. There is need for more clear guidelines for web-based publication of information for disclosure.	+	The Commission has supervisory jurisdiction and can impose personal costs on the designated PIO for persistent non-compliance under [[:act#section-20penalties\|Section 20]].

-	While adhering to the standards of government guidelines as laid down by Department of Information Technology and Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances, the following principles additionally should also be kept in view to ensure that websites' disclosures are complete, easily accessible, technology and platform neutral and in a form which conveys the desired information in an effective and user-friendly manner.	+	===== Landmark rulings =====

-	* It should be the endeavor of all public authorities that all entitlements to citizens and all transactions between the citizen and government are gradually made available through computer based interface. The 'Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2012' under formulation in Government of India would provide the necessary impetus.	+	* //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345** — Supreme Court recognised the centrality of Section 4 and directed Information Commissions to supervise proactive compliance**.
-	* Websites should contain detailed information from the point of origin to the point of delivery of entitlements/services provided by the Public Authorities to citizens.	+	* CIC Decision CIC/SA/A/2013/000132 — Commission may direct a public authority to publish outstanding Section 4 categories within a time-bound schedule, with compliance reports.
-	* Orders of the public authority should be uploaded on the website immediately after they have been issued.	+	* DoPT Office Memorandum No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 15 April 2013 — reiterates the 17-category obligation and prescribes templates.
-	* Website should contain all the relevant Acts, Rules, forms and other documents which are normally accessed by citizens.	+	* //Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC//, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — Supreme Court administrative side is a public authority; proactive disclosure applies.
-	* Websites should have detailed directory of key contacts, details of officials of the Public Authority.	+
-	* It is obligatory under Section 4(1)(b)(xiv) of the RTI Act for every Public Authority to proactively disclose 'details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form'. The website should therefore indicate which digitally held information is made available publicly over the internet and which is not.	+
-	* As departments reorganize their systems and processes to enable themselves for electronic service delivery, it is recommended that the requirement of bringing due transparency as provided in the RTI Act is given adequate consideration at the design stage itself.	+
-	* To maintain reliability of information and its real time updation, information generation in a digital form should be automatically updated on the basis of key work outputs, like a muster roll and salary slip (NREGA in Andhra Pradesh) or formalization of a government order (Andhra Pradesh). Such an approach will lead to automation of proactive disclosure.	+
-	* Information must be presented from a user's perspective, which may require re- arranging it, simplifying it etc. However, original documents in original formats should continue to be made available because these are needed for community monitoring of government's functioning.	+
-	* The 'National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy' by the Department of Science and Technology is based on the principle that all publicly funded information should be readily available. The policy has been notified in March, 2012 and the schedule should be strictly adhered to.	+
-	* Information and data should be presented in open data formats whereby it can be pulled by different Application Protocol Interfaces to be used in different fashions more appropriate to specific contexts and needs. Information/ data can, for instance, be presented in powerful visual ways using visualisation techniques. Such visual representation of information/ data can give insights that may remain largely hidden in a textual or tabular presentation of data. In some contexts, pictures and audio/videos recordings etc may be more useful. There have been moves in some parts of the country to video record Gram Sabha meetings. A picture of a NREGA worksite, for instance, may tell much more than words can. All such different media and forms should be used for proactive disclosure.	+
-	* Every webpage displaying information or data proactively disclosed under the RTI Act should, on the top right corner, display the mandatory field 'Date last updated (DD/MM/YY)'.	+

-	===== The procedure followed in the decision-making processes =====	+	===== Practical checklist for the common citizen =====

-	<html>	+	- Open the department's official website. Look for a link named //"RTI"//, //"Right to Information"// or //"Transparency"//.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	- Spot-check 5 of the 17 categories — PIO list, directory of officers, budget, rules, monthly remuneration. If any is missing or older than a year, Section 4 is not complied with.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	- Screenshot the website with the URL and date visible. That is your evidence.
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	- File an RTI using the wording above.
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+	- On refusal or delay, file a Section 18 complaint with the Information Commission within 90 days.
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+	- Attend the hearing — complaints on systemic issues rank higher than individual appeals.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

		+	===== Pro-tip =====

-	Guidelines for section 4(1)(b)(iii) - "the procedure followed in the decision-making processes, including channels of supervision and accountability". The guidelines for detailing the decision making processes are as follows:	+	Include a request for the Section 4 compliance report in your RTI. Many departments file an annual Section 4 self-audit to the Information Commission. Asking for that report is a fast way to reveal the gap between claim and reality.

-	- Every public authority should specifically identify the major outputs/ tangible results/ services/ goods, as applicable, that it is responsible for providing to the public or to whosoever is the client of the public authority.	+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
-	- In respect of (a) above, the decision-making chain should be identified in the form of a flow chart explaining the rank/grade of the public functionaries involved in the decision-making process and the specific stages in the decision-making hierarchy.	+
-	- The powers of each officer including powers of supervision over subordinates involved in the chain of decision-making must also be spelt out next to the flow chart or in a simple bullet-pointed format in a text-box. The exceptional circumstances when such standard decision-making processes may be overridden and by whom, should also be explained clearly. Where decentralization of decision-making has occurred in order to grant greater autonomy to public authorities, such procedures must also be clearly explained.	+
-	- This design of presentation should then be extended to cover all statutory and discretionary operations that are part of the public authority's mandate under the AOB read with the TOB.	+
-	- In the event of a public authority altering an existing decision-making process or adopting an entirely new process, such changes must be explained in simple language in order to enable people to easily understand the changes made.	+
-	===== Guidelines for Section 4(1)(b)(iv) - "the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions" =====	+
-	- Defining the services and goods that the particular public authority/office provides directly (or indirectly through any other agency/contractor).	+
-	- Detailing and describing the processes by which the public can access and/or receive the goods and services that they are entitled to, from the public authority/office along with the forms, if any prescribed, for use by both the applicant and the service providing agency. Links to such forms (online), wherever available, should be given.	+
-	- Describing the conditions, criteria and priorities under which a person becomes eligible for the goods and services, and consequently the categories of people who are entitled to receive the goods and services.	+
-	efining the quantitative and tangible parameters, (weight, size, frequency etc,) and timelines, that are applicable to the goods and services that are accessible to the public.	+
-	Defining the qualitative and quantitative outcomes that each public authority/office plans to achieve through the goods and services that it was obligated to provide.	+
-	Laying down individual responsibility for providing the goods and services (who is responsible for delivery/implementation and who is responsible for supervision).	+

-	===== Guidelines for Section 4(1)(b)(xi)- "the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made". =====	+	==== Can I get damages for non-compliance? ====

-	The public authorities while disclosing their budgets shall undertake the following:	+	Not as such, but [[:act#section-19appeal\|Section 19(8)(b)]] empowers the Commission to award compensation to an applicant harmed by inaction. Section 4 non-compliance combined with Section 6 refusal often supports a compensation claim.

-	- Keeping in view of the technical nature of the government budgets, it is essential that Ministries/Departments prepare simplified versions of their budgets which can be understood easily by general public and place them in public domain. Budgets and their periodic monitoring reports may also be presented in a more user-friendly manner through graphs and tables, etc.	+	==== Are private schools, NGOs, cooperative societies covered? ====
-	- Outcome budget being prepared by Ministries/Departments of Government of India should be prominently displayed and be used as a basis to identify physical targets planned during the budgetary period and the actual achievement vis-à-vis those targets. A monthly programme implementation calendar method of reporting being followed in Karnataka is a useful model.	+
-	- Funds released to various autonomous organizations/ statutory organizations/ attached offices/ Public Sector Enterprises/ Societies/ NGOs/ Corporations etc. should be put on the website on a quarterly basis and budgets of such authorities may be made accessible through links from the website of the Ministry/Department. If a subsidiary does not have a website then the budgets and expenditure reports of such subsidiary authority may be uploaded on the website of the principal Public Authority.	+
-	- Wherever required by law or executive instruction, sector specific allocations and achievements of every department or public authority (where feasible) must be highlighted. For example, budget allocation and target focusing on gender, children, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and religious minorities should be specially highlighted. The sector-wise breakup of these targets and actual outcomes must be given in simplified form to enable the vulnerable segments of society to better understand the budgets of public authorities.	+

-	===== Guidelines for Section 4(1)(b)(xiv) - details in respect of information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form =====	+	Only if they qualify as public authorities under [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Section 2(h)]]. The Thalappalam test applies.

-	On the one hand, this clause serves as a means of proactively disclosing the progress made in computerizing information under Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act in a periodic manner. On the other, it provides people with clarity about the kinds of electronic information that, although not held by the public authority, is available to them. For example the stocks of ration available with individual fair price shops may not be held by the District Civil Supplies office, but may be available at a subordinate formation.	+	==== What counts as "electronic form"? ====

-	Keeping in view the varied levels of computerization of records and documents in public authorities, data about records that have been digitized may be proactively disclosed on the respective websites, excluding those records /files /information that are exempted under Section 8. The data about digitized record may include the name of the record and any categorization or indexing used; the subject matter and any other information that is required to be compiled in relation to a file as prescribed by Manual of Office Procedure (and to be prescribed by MOP for electronic records that is under finalization by DARPG), the division/ section/ unit/ office where the record is normally held; the person, with designation, responsible for maintaining the record; and the life span of the record, as prescribed in the relevant record retention schedule.	+	Any format readable on a standard browser — HTML pages, PDFs, machine-readable tables. Scanned PDFs with no OCR are legally compliant but practically unhelpful; the Commission has cautioned against them.

-	===== Compliance with Provisions of suo motu (proactive) disclosure under the RTI Act =====	+	==== How often must the information be updated? ====
-	<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>	+

		+	At least annually under Section 4(1)(b) read with DoPT guidelines. Items that change more frequently (budget allocations, pay orders) must be updated as soon as they are revised.

-	- Each Ministry/Public Authority shall ensure that these guidelines are fully operationalized within a period of 6 months from the date of their issue.	+	==== Which law overrides — RTI or privacy? ====
-	- Proactive disclosure as per these guidelines would require collating a large quantum of information and digitizing it. For this purpose, Ministries/Public Authorities may engage consultants or outsource such work to expeditiously comply with these guidelines. For this purpose, the plan/non-plan funds of that department may be utilized.	+
-	- The Action Taken Report on the compliance of these guidelines should be sent, along with the URL link, to the DoPT and Central Information Commission soon after the expiry of the initial period of 6 months.	+
-	- Each Ministry/ Public Authority should get its proactive disclosure package audited by third party every year. The audit should cover compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines as well as adequacy of the items included in the package. The audit should examine whether there are any other types of information which could be proactively disclosed. Such audit should be done annually and should be communicated to the Central Information Commission annually through publication on their own websites. All Public Authorities should proactively disclose the names of the third party auditors on their website. For carrying out third party audit through outside consultants also, Ministries/Public Authorities should utilize their plan/non-plan funds.	+
-	- The Central Information Commission should examine the third-party audit reports for each Ministry/Public Authority and offer advice/recommendations to the concerned Ministries/ Public Authorities.	+
-	- Central Information Commission should carry out sample audit of few of the Ministries/ Public Authorities each year with regard to adequacy of items included as well as compliance of the Ministry/Public Authority with these guidelines.	+
-	- Compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines, its audit by third party and its communication to the Central Information Commission should be included as RFD target.	+

-	The Guidelines of Suo-Moto Disclosure is enclosed(({{ :explanations:suo_moto_disclosure-15042013.pdf \|Suo Moto Disclosure Guidelines}}))	+	After the 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) by DPDP Rules 2025, personal information of third parties (e.g., beneficiaries' names with addresses) is tested against the amended privacy proviso. Aggregate or suitably-redacted data remains disclosable.
-	The work copy of the Suo Moto Disclosure can be downloaded from this {{ :explanations:suo_moto_disclosure-15042013.docx \|link}}.	+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	Spend 10 minutes today on any department's website. Open the "RTI" link. Count how many of the 17 categories are current. For every gap, you have a Section 4 case. Use the templates above. Start with our [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]] and adapt.
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:explanations:public-authority\|Public authority — Section 2(h)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially financed — Thalappalam test]]
		+	* [[:explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti\|Speaking-order requirement — Section 7(8)]]
		+	* [[:explanations:missing-files-under-rti\|Missing files under RTI]]
		+	* [[:explanations:deemed-cpio\|Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5)]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|Inspection under RTI]]
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP 2025]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 4 read with Sections 2(h), 6, 18, 19.
		+	- Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 15 April 2013.
		+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India//, (2020) 11 SCC 345.
		+	- //Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC//, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
		+	- Central Information Commission, //Annual Report 2023-24//.
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-4 suo-motu proactive-disclosure 17-categories section-18 practice 2026}}

"Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/06/01 15:06		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Substantially Financed ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(substantially financed rti, section 2h rti, public authority rti, thalappalam coop, rti private bodies, 50 percent funding test)
-	{{like>}}	+	metatag-description=(The "substantially financed" test decides whether a body is a public authority under Section 2(h) and thus amenable to RTI.)}}
-	===== What is the meaning of Substantially financed under RTI Act =====	+

-	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]] Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a 'public authority' stipulates as follows:	+	====== "Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test ======

-	"[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-substantially-financed.png?direct&1200 \|"Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test — RTI Wiki}}
-	- by or under the Constitution;	+
-	- by any other law made by Parliament;	+
-	- by any other law made by State Legislature;	+
-	- by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-	+
-	- body owned, controlled or substantially financed;	+
-	- non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government;"	+

-	The term 'Substantially financed' is not defined in the RTI Act. When a term is not defined in an Act, the normal rule is to find the definition of the term in a relatable statute or legislation and apply the same. The definition is given in Section 14(1) of CAG Act-1971 for the term substantially financed (([[http://www.rtiindia.org/forums/188-substantially-financed-while-defining-any-organization-public.html\|Substantially Financed decision- rtiindia.org]] ))	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	According to this Section, when the loan or grant by the government to a body/authority is not less than Rs 25 lakhs and the amount of such loan or grant is not less than 75% of the total expenditure of that body/authority, then such body/authority shall be deemed to be substantially financed by such grants/loans. Direct funding could be by way of cash grants, reimbursement of expenses etc., and indirect funding could be meeting the expenses directly or in kind ((Appeal No.163/ICPB/2006, F.No.PBA/06/158, Dated November 28, 2006 Appellant: Shri Veeresh Malik, New Delhi Public authority: Indian Olympics Association / Deptt. of Sports)).	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line: [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(h)(d)(i)]] of the RTI Act brings a non-government body within the Act if it is "substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government". The Supreme Court in //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82, set the governing test: "substantial" means a dominant or near-complete reliance on State funding — usually above 50 percent of the body's working capital or operational budget.
		+	</WRAP>

-	===== More Interpretations from various Court Decisions =====	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? A one-time grant does not make a body substantially financed. The Supreme Court held in //Thalappalam// that the funding must be ongoing, substantial, and significant to the body's functioning. A cooperative bank receiving a small registration fee from the State is //not// substantially financed. A private school whose entire recurring cost is met by Central grants //is//.
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	===== Legal Basis =====
-	<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>	+
-	The words “substantially financed” have been used in [[:act\|Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii)]], while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds	+
-	provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act.	+

-	“Substantial” means “in a substantial manner so as to be substantial”. In Palser v. Grimling (1948) 1 All ER 1, 11 (HL), while interpreting the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, the House of Lords held that “substantial” is not the same as “not unsubstantial” i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. The word “substantial” literally means solid, massive etc. Legislature has used the expression “substantially financed” in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii) indicating that the degree of **financing must	+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(h)]] — "public authority" definition, including the four sub-clauses (a)-(d).
-	be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable etc**.	+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(h)(d)(i)]] — non-government body "substantially financed" by government.
		+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(h)(d)(ii)]] — non-government body "substantially financed, directly or indirectly" by government.

-	We often use the expressions “questions of law” and “substantial questions of law” and explain that any question of law affecting the right of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. In Black's Law Dictionary(6th Edn.), the word 'substantial' is defined as 'of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable.	+	===== The Thalappalam test — a practical checklist =====

-	Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.	+	- Does the body rely on government funds for over 50 percent of its operating expenses? If yes, strong presumption of "substantial".
-	<html>	+	- Is the funding recurring (annual grant, salary support, capital advance) or a one-time contribution?
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	- Would the body continue to function without government funding? A cooperative bank receiving a small licence fee — yes. A private college receiving 90 percent of its salary budget from UGC — no.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	- Is there government control on top of funding (nominated directors, audit, fee regulation)?
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	- Is the body a "creature of statute" — incorporated under a special law that subjects it to State oversight?
-	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 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'	+	===== Worked examples =====
-	Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. It is closer to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context.	+

-	**Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist.**	+	^ Body ^ Substantially financed? ^ Reason ^
		+	\| **IITs, IIMs, NITs \| Yes \| Central funding + Central statute \|**
		+	\| UGC-funded private universities \| Yes \| 90 percent of salary costs paid by UGC \|
		+	\| Aided schools \| Yes \| Teacher salaries fully paid by State \|
		+	\| Cooperative banks (under Kerala Cooperative Societies Act) \| No \| Thalappalam — registration fees are not "substantial" financing \|
		+	\| Fully private schools \| No \| Registration does not imply substantial financing \|
		+	\| NGOs receiving occasional grants \| Case by case \| Depends on whether grants are the body's mainstay \|
		+	\| PSUs (ONGC, SBI, LIC, IOC)** \| Yes \| Government control + funding \|**
		+	\| Cricket associations \| Contested \| Land grants + tax concessions can add up \|

-	The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.	+	===== Drafting strategy when the body denies coverage =====
-	<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>	+

-	But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).	+	Public authority status is a threshold question. If an RTI is denied on the ground that //"we are not a public authority"//, your first appeal and second appeal should demand findings on the Thalappalam test. Include in your appeal:
-	----	+

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	<code>
-	<html>	+	The respondent's refusal rests on the assertion that it is not
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	a public authority under Section 2(h). That assertion requires
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	an evidence-based finding on the Thalappalam test:
-	style="display:block"	+	(a) What percentage of the body's recurring operating expenditure
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+	is met by government funds, directly or indirectly?
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+	(b) Is the funding continuing, substantial, and material to
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	functioning?
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+	(c) What controls does the government exercise over the body?
-	<script>	+	A non-speaking order on these three questions cannot dismiss the
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	application.
-	</script>	+	</code>
-	</html>	+
-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+

-	[<>]	+	===== Landmark rulings =====
		+
		+	* //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82 — the governing test. "Substantial" means materially significant, usually over 50 percent of working funds; registration or regulatory oversight alone does not qualify.
		+	* //DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction//, (2019) 9 SCC 185 — reaffirmed Thalappalam and held that private colleges receiving government aid for faculty salaries are public authorities.
		+	* //R.S. Misra v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India//, Delhi High Court (2017) — the Supreme Court (administrative side) is a public authority covered by Section 2(h)(a) via Section 28.
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	When a private body denies coverage, file a Section 18 complaint to the Information Commission asking for findings on the three Thalappalam questions. The Commission has original jurisdiction and can direct disclosure if the body qualifies.
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Coop Bank v. Kerala — full case note]]
		+	* [[:explanations:public-authority\|Public authority under RTI]]
		+	* [[:rti-vs-complaint\|RTI vs Complaint — when RTI is the wrong tool]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-appeal\|First Appeal template]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 2(h).
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+	- //DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction//, (2019) 9 SCC 185.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-2h substantially-financed public-authority thalappalam}}

-	~~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}}
		+

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}}

Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2026/05/03 11:40	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-commissioner-tenure-salaries.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / commissioner-tenure-salaries — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Amendment Act 2019, Information Commissioner tenure 2026, CIC salary 2026, Section 13 RTI Act, Section 15 RTI Act, Section 16 RTI Act, Central Government administrative control, Anjali Bhardwaj v Union, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(The current position on tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre and in the States.)}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Until 2019, the Chief Information Commissioner drew a salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner — which was tied by statute to a Supreme Court Judge's salary. The 2019 amendment cut that link. The Central Government now fixes the salary by rule.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019, effective 24 October 2019) substituted Sections 13, 15, and 16 of the RTI Act, 2005. Tenure, salary, and service conditions of every Information Commissioner in India are now determined by the Central Government by rule, not by statute.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Tenure: Fixed term of three years (previously: until sixty-five years of age, or five-year term, whichever was earlier).
	+	* Salary: Fixed by the Central Government by rule — no longer statutorily linked to a Supreme Court or Election Commissioner's salary.
	+	* Service conditions: Central Government notifies allowances, leave, and other terms.
	+	* Scope: The amendment covers the Central Information Commission and every State Information Commission.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What the Act said before 2019 =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005, as originally enacted, fixed the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners by statute:
	+
	+	* Central Chief Information Commissioner — tenure and salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner.
	+	* Central Information Commissioners — tenure and salary equal to Election Commissioners.
	+	* State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners — pegged to the Central equivalents but with appropriate State-Government modifications.
	+
	+	The statutory link was deliberate. The drafters of 2005 tied Commissioners' status to constitutional officers so that their salary, pension, and service conditions could not be varied by executive rule. This was a protection for institutional independence.
	+
	+	Commissioner tenure under the pre-2019 Act was five years or age 65, whichever was earlier.
	+
	+	===== What the 2019 Amendment did =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 substituted the relevant sub-sections:
	+
	+	==== Section 13 — Central Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 13(2). Term of office and service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+	* Section 13(5). Salary, allowances, and other service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	==== Section 15 — State Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 15(4) and (5). Tenure and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner — "as may be prescribed by the Central Government". (Note: Central Government, not the State Government.)
	+
	+	==== Section 16 — State Information Commissioners ====
	+
	+	* Section 16(2) and (5). Tenure and service conditions — again, "as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	Parliament supplemented the substituted statutory text with the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 — commonly called the RTI Rules, 2019, notified on 24 October 2019.
	+
	+	Under the 2019 Rules:
	+
	+	* Tenure: Three years, or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier.
	+	* Salary (Central Chief Information Commissioner): Equivalent to a salary of a Secretary to the Government of India — not the former Chief Election Commissioner / Supreme Court Judge scale.
	+	* Salary (Central Information Commissioners): As notified under the 2019 Rules.
	+	* Salary (State Information Commissioners): Also fixed by the Central Rules.
	+	* Re-appointment: Not available — once the term expires, the officeholder demits office.
	+
	+	===== Why it matters =====
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was described by the Government as an exercise in administrative rationalisation — aligning tenure and pay of the Information Commissions with those of other statutory bodies. Critics, including a broad coalition of civil-society organisations and 120 Opposition Members of Parliament, argued that the amendment:
	+
	+	* Reduced the institutional independence of the Commissions by making their terms a matter of executive rule rather than Parliamentary statute.
	+	* Shortened tenure from five to three years, increasing turnover and reducing institutional memory.
	+	* Empowered the Central Government to fix even State Commissioners' terms, arguably encroaching on the federal scheme of the Act.
	+	* Removed the status parity with Election Commissioners, which had served as a reputational and functional anchor for the RTI regime.
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//. The Court declined to strike down the amendment but issued detailed directions on the process of appointments, emphasising the need for transparency, timely filling of vacancies, and publication of the reasons for selection. Those directions have become the anchoring framework for every subsequent appointment.
	+
	+	===== What the current position means for applicants =====
	+
	+	The tenure-and-salary changes do not alter the rights of an RTI applicant. The Act's substantive right under Section 3, the procedure under Sections 6 and 7, and the appeal ladder under Sections 19 and 20 are unchanged. What applicants notice, indirectly, is:
	+
	+	* Shorter tenures produce more transitions. New Commissioners, new hearing benches, and shifting panel compositions affect the pace of second appeals.
	+	* Pendency pressure. Three-year terms combined with long gaps between appointments contribute to the widely-cited pendency figures across the Central and State Commissions. See [[:blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]] and the [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|decade-of-change essay]].
	+	* Uniform Central control means the service conditions of the Information Commissioner in your State are set by the Central Government, not by your State Government — a point worth knowing when correspondence about a delayed appeal reaches the State Secretariat.
	+
	+	===== Status as of April 2026 =====
	+
	+	The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in force. The RTI Rules, 2019 continue to govern tenure and salaries. The DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) (see [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|the DPDP amendment analysis]]) operates on a different axis — it is about what can be disclosed, not who orders the disclosure. The two reforms are analytically distinct.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text, as amended]] — sections 12–17 carry overlays noting the 2019 amendment.
	+	* [[:rules:start\|RTI Rules]].
	+	* [[:rules:cic\|Central Information Commission regulations]].
	+	* [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
	+	* [[:blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for PIOs]].
	+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for FAAs]].
	+
	+
	+
	+	===== 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]]
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 13, 15, 16 (pre- and post-2019 text).
	+	- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), notified 24 October 2019.
	+	- The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners) Rules, 2019.
	+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//, Supreme Court of India, with subsequent directions on appointment transparency.
	+	- Parliamentary debates on the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	20 April 2026
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-amendment-2019 commissioner-tenure salary section-13 section-15 section-16 anjali-bhardwaj}}

Severability — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2018/06/03 10:12		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Severability ======	+	====== Severability — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
-	{{tag>severability, rti act}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-severability.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / severability — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations severability rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Download RTI Act. Prescribed. Competent Authority under RTI Act. The RTI Act, *2005. What is Information under RTI Act. Download RTI Act. * Prescribed.)}}**
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 10 is the rule against blanket refusal. If part of a record is exempt, the PIO must redact that part and release the rest. The PIO's order must say what was withheld and why.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Used correctly, severability resolves most Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) disputes.
		+	* A refusal of an entire mixed record without severance is itself appealable.
		+	* Redaction should be minimal — only the actually exempt text, not the whole paragraph.
		+	</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:languages\|Download RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:prescribed\|Prescribed]].
		+	* [[:explanations:competent-authority\|Competent Authority under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:act:start\|The RTI Act, 2005]].
		+	* [[:explanations:information\|What is Information under RTI Act]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>severability rti act}}
	{{ :explanations:severability.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:severability.jpg \|}}
	What is severability under RTI Act		What is severability under RTI Act

-	Section 10 (1) of [[act:\|RTI Act]] defines that "Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information."	+	Section 10 (1) of [[:act:\|RTI Act]] defines that "Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information."

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<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 important aspect of ‘severability’ must be considered by a PIO before denying information. If part of the information asked by an applicant is exempt, the balance information must be provided after removing the part which is exempted.		The important aspect of ‘severability’ must be considered by a PIO before denying information. If part of the information asked by an applicant is exempt, the balance information must be provided after removing the part which is exempted.
Line 24:		Line 42:
	<note>This is a very important provision if used carefully and properly. Since it is almost impossible that the entirety of a longer document would be exempt, careful severing would almost always lead to the release of the non-exempt material. So, in most cases, the proper question to ask is not whether a document is or is not exempt but whether certain material in a document is exempt.</note>		<note>This is a very important provision if used carefully and properly. Since it is almost impossible that the entirety of a longer document would be exempt, careful severing would almost always lead to the release of the non-exempt material. So, in most cases, the proper question to ask is not whether a document is or is not exempt but whether certain material in a document is exempt.</note>

-	Further, the [[act:\|RTI Act]] states under Section 10 (2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant,	+	Further, the [[:act:\|RTI Act]] states under Section 10 (2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant,
	informing -		informing -

Line 39:		Line 57:

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<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>	+

	If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:		If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:
Line 61:		Line 68:
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
	----		----
-	<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="-fb+5w+4e-db+86"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="3623150129"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

Transfer of Application to other PIO

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

2018/12/02 11:24		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Transfer of Application to other PIO ======		====== Transfer of Application to other PIO ======
-	{{tag>Section-6,Transfer}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-transfer-application.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / transfer-application — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations transfer application rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 6(3) requires the PIO to transfer a misdirected RTI to the correct public authority within five days. The applicant does not refile.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Transfer is the PIO's duty, not the applicant's burden.
		+	* The 30-day clock re-starts from the receiving authority's receipt date.
		+	* Failure to transfer is itself a ground for first appeal and Section 20 penalty.
		+	</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>section-6 transfer}}
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
	===== Provision of the RTI Act for Transfer of Application =====		===== Provision of the RTI Act for Transfer of Application =====

-	{{:explanations:trasnfer-rti.png?nolink \|}}As per the Section 6 (3) [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]] Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:	+	{{:explanations:trasnfer-rti.png?nolink &128x128\|}}As per the Section 6 (3) [[:act:\|RTI Act 2005]] Where an application is made to a [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] requesting for an [[:explanations:information\|information]] which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

	Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.		Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

	===== Interpretation of the Provision =====		===== Interpretation of the Provision =====
-	<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>	+
	'Section 6( 1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any in formation shall make a request to the public information officer (PlO) of the concerned public authority. Section 6(3) provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for any information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority to which such application is made,shall transfer the application to that other public authority. A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section(3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PlO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him/her would be available with the public authority to which he/she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PlO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PlO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the' concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfill his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'.		'Section 6( 1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any in formation shall make a request to the public information officer (PlO) of the concerned public authority. Section 6(3) provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for any information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority to which such application is made,shall transfer the application to that other public authority. A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section(3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PlO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him/her would be available with the public authority to which he/she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PlO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PlO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the' concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfill his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'.

Line 49:		Line 64:

	==== Scenario III: No Information is available but the information is scattered ====		==== Scenario III: No Information is available but the information is scattered ====
-	<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>	+
	If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PlO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to anyone particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note.		If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PlO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to anyone particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note.

What is Fiduciary Relationship

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

2018/06/03 06:56		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== What is Fiduciary Relationship ======		====== What is Fiduciary Relationship ======
-	{{:explanations:fiduciary-relationship-rti.jpg\| }}	+
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-fiduciary-relationship.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / fiduciary-relationship — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations fiduciary relationship rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(A 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...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 8(1)(e) protects information held in a fiduciary relationship — but the Supreme Court has read this narrowly, especially after //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016).
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* A fiduciary relationship requires trust + a duty to act in the other's interest.
		+	* Regulator/regulated, employer/employee, or data-handler/data-subject are not automatically fiduciary.
		+	* The PIO must identify the specific fiduciary duty, not merely use the label.
		+	* On appeal, Section 8(2) public-interest override often defeats a weak 8(1)(e) claim.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+	{{:explanations:fiduciary-relationship-rti.jpg?424x283\| }}
	A 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:		A 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,		(1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first,
Line 9:		Line 27:
	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.		The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.

-	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the information is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in the 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.	+	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the [[:explanations:information\|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 the 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.

	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.		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.
Line 16:		Line 34:

	Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.		Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	It also cannot be equated with mere [[:explanations:privacy\|privacy]] or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010
-	<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 also cannot be equated with mere privacy or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010	+

	Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI).)) At the heart of fiduciary relationship lie reliance, de facto control and dominance. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other. The Canadian Courts have developed the following tests for determining whether the fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.		Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI).)) At the heart of fiduciary relationship lie reliance, de facto control and dominance. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other. The Canadian Courts have developed the following tests for determining whether the fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.
Line 44:		Line 51:

	===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====		===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====
-	<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>	+


	A fiduciary relationship ((IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010 Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI))) is one where the key element is that the relationship is principally characterized by trust and the information is given for use only for the benefit of the giver. 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 (([[http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-10072009-07.pdf\|Rakhi Gupta v. Jt. Director & PIO, National Institute of Open Schooling, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343/4053]]))		A fiduciary relationship ((IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010 Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI))) is one where the key element is that the relationship is principally characterized by trust and the information is given for use only for the benefit of the giver. 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 (([[http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-10072009-07.pdf\|Rakhi Gupta v. Jt. Director & PIO, National Institute of Open Schooling, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343/4053]]))

-	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the Public authority, nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))	+	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the [[:explanations:public-authority\|Public authority]], nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))
-	<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>	+
	==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====		==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====

Line 86:		Line 71:

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

Line 103:		Line 77:

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<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}}
		+

Public Authority — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2018/06/01 15:00		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Public Authority ======	+	====== Public Authority — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-public-authority.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / public-authority — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations public authority rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(As defined in Section 2 (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted — a) by or under the...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 2(h) defines a 'public authority' — any authority, body, or institution constituted by or under the Constitution, a law of Parliament or State legislature, or a notification of the appropriate Government. Extends to bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the Government.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Government departments, Central and State PSUs, statutory regulators, constitutional bodies, are all public authorities.
		+	* Cooperative societies were held outside in //Thalappalam// (2013) unless substantially financed.
		+	* Political parties — the CIC held six national parties as public authorities (2013); compliance is pending.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<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>public authority}}{{like>}}		{{tag>public authority}}{{like>}}
-	{{:explanations:pa.jpg\|}}	+	{{:explanations:pa.jpg?350x350\|}}
	===== Who is Public Authority =====		===== Who is Public Authority =====
-	As defined in [[act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —	+	As defined in [[:act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —
	a) by or under the constitution;		a) by or under the constitution;
	b) by any other law made by Parliament;		b) by any other law made by Parliament;
Line 9:		Line 41:
	d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate		d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
	Government, and includes any--		Government, and includes any--
-	(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;	+	(i) body owned, controlled or [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]];
	(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”		(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”
-	<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>	+

	===== Interpretation of Public Authority =====		===== Interpretation of Public Authority =====
Line 34:		Line 55:
	Subclause d) (i) and (ii) mean any non-Government organisations and also private entities which are substantially owned, controlled or financed directly or indirectly by the Government are under the RTI ambit. Thus aided schools and colleges are Public Authorities. When there are significant Government nominees on the boards of companies, or trusts or NGOs this is control by the Government.		Subclause d) (i) and (ii) mean any non-Government organisations and also private entities which are substantially owned, controlled or financed directly or indirectly by the Government are under the RTI ambit. Thus aided schools and colleges are Public Authorities. When there are significant Government nominees on the boards of companies, or trusts or NGOs this is control by the Government.

-	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that besides serving the goals of their organisations the board members are also subject to government direction and that is enough to bring it under the Right to Information law.	+	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that besides serving the goals of their organisations the board members are also subject to government direction and that is enough to bring it under the Right to [[:explanations:information\|Information]] law.
	</note>		</note>

	At times when the Government nominees do not have a majority, it is claimed that the Government does not have control. The plea that if Government nominees are not in complete control the organisation is not a public authority is flawed. It must be noted that the adjective ‘complete’ or ‘pervasive’ control is not mentioned.		At times when the Government nominees do not have a majority, it is claimed that the Government does not have control. The plea that if Government nominees are not in complete control the organisation is not a public authority is flawed. It must be noted that the adjective ‘complete’ or ‘pervasive’ control is not mentioned.

-	<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>	+

	Where the Government either owns substantial stake, or has control over, or has given substantial finance, these are public authorities, directly covered under the Right to Information Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax-incentives, subsidies and other concessions like land as well.		Where the Government either owns substantial stake, or has control over, or has given substantial finance, these are public authorities, directly covered under the Right to Information Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax-incentives, subsidies and other concessions like land as well.
Line 63:		Line 73:

	By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.		By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.
-	<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>	+

	It may be noted that no word in any Act can be considered to be superfluous, unless the contradiction is such as to render a significant part meaningless, or it violates the Preamble. Therefore it becomes necessary to consider a situation where an entity may be controlled by Government without ownership or substantial finance like where they control the board of a trust.		It may be noted that no word in any Act can be considered to be superfluous, unless the contradiction is such as to render a significant part meaningless, or it violates the Preamble. Therefore it becomes necessary to consider a situation where an entity may be controlled by Government without ownership or substantial finance like where they control the board of a trust.
Line 88:		Line 87:
	Company Law gives significant rights to those who own 26 percent of the shares in a Company. No special resolutions may be passed unless 75 percent of the shareholders agrees. Thus, 26% holding represents control.		Company Law gives significant rights to those who own 26 percent of the shares in a Company. No special resolutions may be passed unless 75 percent of the shareholders agrees. Thus, 26% holding represents control.

-	<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>	+

	On the other hand, Section 2(6) of the Company law defines “associate company”, in relation to another company as: (6) “associate company”, in relation to another company, means a company in which that other company has a significant influence, but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence and includes a joint venture company.		On the other hand, Section 2(6) of the Company law defines “associate company”, in relation to another company as: (6) “associate company”, in relation to another company, means a company in which that other company has a significant influence, but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence and includes a joint venture company.
Line 111:		Line 99:
	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) agrees with the conclusion here i.e. 20-25% but not for this reason. He suggests that this is not a business situation. It is about meeting a threshold of public funding which then attracts obligations.</note>		<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) agrees with the conclusion here i.e. 20-25% but not for this reason. He suggests that this is not a business situation. It is about meeting a threshold of public funding which then attracts obligations.</note>

-	<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>

	It, therefore, appears reasonable to have a threshold representing 26 percent of the equity. Perhaps 20 percent of the running expenses could be considered as ‘substantial finance’. To obviate the problem which very small organizations may face in meeting the requirements of the Right to Information Act, it may also be reasonable to accept that if an NGO receives an amount - say less than 2 million - it would not be considered as substantial finance.		It, therefore, appears reasonable to have a threshold representing 26 percent of the equity. Perhaps 20 percent of the running expenses could be considered as ‘substantial finance’. To obviate the problem which very small organizations may face in meeting the requirements of the Right to Information Act, it may also be reasonable to accept that if an NGO receives an amount - say less than 2 million - it would not be considered as substantial finance.
Line 134:		Line 110:
	This would be indirect finance.		This would be indirect finance.

-	<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>	+

	It must be noted that the law does not cover entities which exercise public functions unless they are controlled or substantially financed by Government. A private entity which is not financed or controlled by government is not a ‘public authority’ as defined by this act. Public utilities like electricity distribution companies, or those providing and maintaining roads are not ‘public authorities’ as defined by the law unless it can be shown that they are controlled or substantially financed by the government. Many Rights to Information Act users feel that regulatory control should be considered as control. This view is generally not accepted, since almost all bodies are subject to certain regulations, and this would be too wide an interpretation of the law.		It must be noted that the law does not cover entities which exercise public functions unless they are controlled or substantially financed by Government. A private entity which is not financed or controlled by government is not a ‘public authority’ as defined by this act. Public utilities like electricity distribution companies, or those providing and maintaining roads are not ‘public authorities’ as defined by the law unless it can be shown that they are controlled or substantially financed by the government. Many Rights to Information Act users feel that regulatory control should be considered as control. This view is generally not accepted, since almost all bodies are subject to certain regulations, and this would be too wide an interpretation of the law.

-	<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>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

What is Privacy under RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2017/05/03 01:39		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== What is Privacy under RTI ======	+	====== What is Privacy under RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-privacy.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / privacy — RTI Wiki}}

-	Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "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:"	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations privacy rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Privacy under the RTI Act is principally the shield in Section 8(1)(j) — personal information that has no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* 14 November 2025 amendment removed the proviso that information not deniable to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen.
		+	* The override now runs only through Section 8(2) — public interest must be specifically invoked.
		+	* //K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right — this strengthens the 8(1)(j) shield.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	Under Section 8 (1) (j) [[:explanations:information\|information]] which has been exempted is defined as: "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 [[:explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] justifies the disclosure of such information:"

	===== Criterion =====		===== Criterion =====
-	When a citizen is seeking information about his own case, there is no intrusion into the privacy of his case for denying the information.((Decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat)) Personal information mean about a third party. [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] can be applied only when some one is seeking information about a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] and there will be an element of invasion of privacy.	+	When a citizen is seeking information about his own case, there is no intrusion into the privacy of his case for denying the information.((Decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat)) Personal information mean about a [[:explanations:third-party\|third party]]. [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] can be applied only when some one is seeking information about a [[:explanations:third-party\|third party]] and there will be an element of invasion of privacy.

	CIC Defined “Invasion of Privacy” as <wrap em>//“One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”//</wrap>		CIC Defined “Invasion of Privacy” as <wrap em>//“One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”//</wrap>

-	A personal information must be saved from being made public by the public authority which happens to receive such information. It is to be remembered that a personal information does not cease to be personal just because it is delivered into the care of the public authority by the individual such information.	+	A personal information must be saved from being made public by the [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] which happens to receive such information. It is to be remembered that a personal information does not cease to be personal just because it is delivered into the care of the public authority by the individual such information.

-	Commission also cannot be oblivious to the fact that personal information, when allowed to be accessed by third parties has the potentially to expose the owner of such information to mischief, harassment, intimidation, defamation and worse. The boundaries of personal/private domains must never be allowed to be breached and, if at all breached, must be for compelling reasons, cautiously, carefully and responsibly evaluated by a competent authority as the Act can't be so interpeted as to allow poaching by third parties into personal domains (([[http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Scope-of-Section-8-1-j-of-The-RTI-Act-2005-Privacy-as-abuse-for-claiming-exemption-3768.asp\|Mukesh Shukla]] ))	+	Commission also cannot be oblivious to the fact that personal information, when allowed to be accessed by third parties has the potentially to expose the owner of such information to mischief, harassment, intimidation, defamation and worse. The boundaries of personal/private domains must never be allowed to be breached and, if at all breached, must be for compelling reasons, cautiously, carefully and responsibly evaluated by a [[:explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] as the Act can't be so interpeted as to allow poaching by third parties into personal domains (([[http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Scope-of-Section-8-1-j-of-The-RTI-Act-2005-Privacy-as-abuse-for-claiming-exemption-3768.asp\|Mukesh Shukla]] ))

	To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria ((REFERENCE: Bishamber Dayal Tyagi v PIO, Delhi Jal Board, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092)):		To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria ((REFERENCE: Bishamber Dayal Tyagi v PIO, Delhi Jal Board, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092)):
Line 35:		Line 51:
	- Tour programme of officers not personal information.		- Tour programme of officers not personal information.
	- Personal Information sought by legal heir of the deceased employee is not exempted to him.		- Personal Information sought by legal heir of the deceased employee is not exempted to him.
-	The [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]] may be read here!	+	The [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]] may be read here!
-	===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====	+
-	The Government in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.	+

-	Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PIO cannot disclose such information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed. As defined in clause (a) of [[act:\|Section 2]] of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. Is it a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PIO liable to action.(({{ :explanations:no_990.pdf \|Another Public Authority is Third Party, DOPT OM}} ))
	----		----
	===== Discuss this topic =====		===== Discuss this topic =====
Line 50:		Line 63:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<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}}

2026/05/03 11:40	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-commissioner-tenure-salaries.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / commissioner-tenure-salaries — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Amendment Act 2019, Information Commissioner tenure 2026, CIC salary 2026, Section 13 RTI Act, Section 15 RTI Act, Section 16 RTI Act, Central Government administrative control, Anjali Bhardwaj v Union, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(The current position on tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre and in the States.)}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Until 2019, the Chief Information Commissioner drew a salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner — which was tied by statute to a Supreme Court Judge's salary. The 2019 amendment cut that link. The Central Government now fixes the salary by rule.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019, effective 24 October 2019) substituted Sections 13, 15, and 16 of the RTI Act, 2005. Tenure, salary, and service conditions of every Information Commissioner in India are now determined by the Central Government by rule, not by statute.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Tenure: Fixed term of three years (previously: until sixty-five years of age, or five-year term, whichever was earlier).
	+	* Salary: Fixed by the Central Government by rule — no longer statutorily linked to a Supreme Court or Election Commissioner's salary.
	+	* Service conditions: Central Government notifies allowances, leave, and other terms.
	+	* Scope: The amendment covers the Central Information Commission and every State Information Commission.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What the Act said before 2019 =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005, as originally enacted, fixed the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners by statute:
	+
	+	* Central Chief Information Commissioner — tenure and salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner.
	+	* Central Information Commissioners — tenure and salary equal to Election Commissioners.
	+	* State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners — pegged to the Central equivalents but with appropriate State-Government modifications.
	+
	+	The statutory link was deliberate. The drafters of 2005 tied Commissioners' status to constitutional officers so that their salary, pension, and service conditions could not be varied by executive rule. This was a protection for institutional independence.
	+
	+	Commissioner tenure under the pre-2019 Act was five years or age 65, whichever was earlier.
	+
	+	===== What the 2019 Amendment did =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 substituted the relevant sub-sections:
	+
	+	==== Section 13 — Central Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 13(2). Term of office and service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+	* Section 13(5). Salary, allowances, and other service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	==== Section 15 — State Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 15(4) and (5). Tenure and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner — "as may be prescribed by the Central Government". (Note: Central Government, not the State Government.)
	+
	+	==== Section 16 — State Information Commissioners ====
	+
	+	* Section 16(2) and (5). Tenure and service conditions — again, "as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	Parliament supplemented the substituted statutory text with the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 — commonly called the RTI Rules, 2019, notified on 24 October 2019.
	+
	+	Under the 2019 Rules:
	+
	+	* Tenure: Three years, or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier.
	+	* Salary (Central Chief Information Commissioner): Equivalent to a salary of a Secretary to the Government of India — not the former Chief Election Commissioner / Supreme Court Judge scale.
	+	* Salary (Central Information Commissioners): As notified under the 2019 Rules.
	+	* Salary (State Information Commissioners): Also fixed by the Central Rules.
	+	* Re-appointment: Not available — once the term expires, the officeholder demits office.
	+
	+	===== Why it matters =====
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was described by the Government as an exercise in administrative rationalisation — aligning tenure and pay of the Information Commissions with those of other statutory bodies. Critics, including a broad coalition of civil-society organisations and 120 Opposition Members of Parliament, argued that the amendment:
	+
	+	* Reduced the institutional independence of the Commissions by making their terms a matter of executive rule rather than Parliamentary statute.
	+	* Shortened tenure from five to three years, increasing turnover and reducing institutional memory.
	+	* Empowered the Central Government to fix even State Commissioners' terms, arguably encroaching on the federal scheme of the Act.
	+	* Removed the status parity with Election Commissioners, which had served as a reputational and functional anchor for the RTI regime.
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//. The Court declined to strike down the amendment but issued detailed directions on the process of appointments, emphasising the need for transparency, timely filling of vacancies, and publication of the reasons for selection. Those directions have become the anchoring framework for every subsequent appointment.
	+
	+	===== What the current position means for applicants =====
	+
	+	The tenure-and-salary changes do not alter the rights of an RTI applicant. The Act's substantive right under Section 3, the procedure under Sections 6 and 7, and the appeal ladder under Sections 19 and 20 are unchanged. What applicants notice, indirectly, is:
	+
	+	* Shorter tenures produce more transitions. New Commissioners, new hearing benches, and shifting panel compositions affect the pace of second appeals.
	+	* Pendency pressure. Three-year terms combined with long gaps between appointments contribute to the widely-cited pendency figures across the Central and State Commissions. See [[:blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]] and the [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|decade-of-change essay]].
	+	* Uniform Central control means the service conditions of the Information Commissioner in your State are set by the Central Government, not by your State Government — a point worth knowing when correspondence about a delayed appeal reaches the State Secretariat.
	+
	+	===== Status as of April 2026 =====
	+
	+	The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in force. The RTI Rules, 2019 continue to govern tenure and salaries. The DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) (see [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|the DPDP amendment analysis]]) operates on a different axis — it is about what can be disclosed, not who orders the disclosure. The two reforms are analytically distinct.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text, as amended]] — sections 12–17 carry overlays noting the 2019 amendment.
	+	* [[:rules:start\|RTI Rules]].
	+	* [[:rules:cic\|Central Information Commission regulations]].
	+	* [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
	+	* [[:blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for PIOs]].
	+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for FAAs]].
	+
	+
	+
	+	===== 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]]
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 13, 15, 16 (pre- and post-2019 text).
	+	- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), notified 24 October 2019.
	+	- The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners) Rules, 2019.
	+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//, Supreme Court of India, with subsequent directions on appointment transparency.
	+	- Parliamentary debates on the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	20 April 2026
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-amendment-2019 commissioner-tenure salary section-13 section-15 section-16 anjali-bhardwaj}}