Right to Information Wiki

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}}

Third-Party Information under RTI — Section 11 procedure (2026)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 May 2026 09:50:12 +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,Suhas Chakma,Arvind Kejriwal CPIO)&metatag-description=(Section 11 RTI Act — when PIO must notice a third party before disclosure. 7-step procedure, 40-day window, public-interest override under §8(2). 2026 guide.)}}
-	{{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:	+	====== Third-Party Information under RTI — Section 11 procedure (2026) ======

-	//“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:	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-third-party.png?direct&1200 \|Third-Party Information under RTI Section 11 — 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.”//	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
-	====== How to interpret Third Party Clause ======	+

-	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.	+	Quick answer. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the mandatory natural-justice procedure that a Public Information Officer (PIO) must follow before disclosing information that was supplied by, or relates to, a person other than the applicant — and where that person has treated it as confidential. Within 5 days of receiving the RTI application the PIO must issue a written notice to the third party; the third party has 10 days to make an oral or written representation; and the PIO must take a reasoned decision within 40 days under §11(3). The third party gets an independent right of appeal under §11(4) read with §19 — disclosure does not take effect until the third party's 30-day appeal window has closed. Section 11 is a procedure, not an exemption — refusal grounds live in §8 and §9. Common mistakes (skipping notice, late notice, non-speaking orders, treating §11 as a third-party veto) are themselves appealable defects. After the DPDP Rules 2025 (notified 14 November 2025) amended §8(1)(j), the §11 procedure is unchanged but the //outcome// on personal-information cases is more conservative — the public-interest override now operates only via §8(2). "Third party" includes another public authority under §2(n); inter-departmental confidential notes attract the §11 process. This page explains the statutory text, the seven-step procedure, the post-DPDP-2025 position, eight leading decisions (Suhas Chakma, Arvind Kejriwal, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, Aditya Bandopadhyay, Jayantilal Mistry, Puttaswamy, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, ADR Electoral Bonds), a real-life recovery case, and the action-checklist for applicants, PIOs, third parties, and FAAs.

-	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:**	+	<WRAP info>
		+	**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.

-	“......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.”	+	What that means in practice.
-	{{:explanations:third-party-rti.jpeg?400 \|}}	+	* "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>

-	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	+	<div didyouknow>
-	public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party.	+	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>

-	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:	+	===== A stuck file usually has a third-party problem behind it =====
-	<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.”//	+	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.

		+	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.

-	===== Procedure of disclosing third party information: =====	+	===== Who is a "third party" =====

-	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.	+	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.

-	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.	+	* 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.

-	The Public Information Officer will have to consider the following:	+	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.

-	- The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.	+	===== The text of Section 11 =====
-	- 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: ====	+	<code>
-		+	11. Third party information.

-	"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."	+	(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:

-	==== Section 11 gives only an 'opportunity' to the third party to voice its objections to disclosing information: ====	+	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.
-		+
-	"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: ====	+	(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.
-		+
-	"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: ====	+	(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 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. ====	+	(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>

-	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."	+	===== When Section 11 is triggered, and when it is not =====

-	==== What is Public Activities performed by Public Authorities? ====	+	Section 11 applies only when both conditions are met.

-	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 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.

-	==== Citizen's right to information is given priority with regard to privacy: ====	+	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.
-		+
-	"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? ====	+	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.

-	Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:	+	===== The Section 11 timeline — from filing to decision =====
-	"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	+	^ 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) \|

-	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.	+	===== Real-life: how Mahesh Patil cleared a stuck tender RTI in 38 days =====

-	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.	+	Mahesh Patil, a 52-year-old retired civil engineer from Nashik, filed an RTI to the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation seeking the technical-evaluation minutes and post-award concession terms of a recently-awarded NH PPP project. The PIO issued a §11 notice to the winning concessionaire on Day 7 — a defective 2-day delay past the 5-day window. The concessionaire raised a §8(1)(d) commercial-confidence objection. The PIO refused disclosure on Day 35 with a one-line order — //"objection sustained, refused"//.

-	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.	+	Mahesh filed a First Appeal under §19(1) with three sharp grounds:

-	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.	+	- The §11 notice was issued **on Day 7**, breaching the §11(1) 5-day clock — a procedural default per //Suhas Chakma v. CIC// (Delhi HC 2010).
		+	- The PIO order was not a speaking order — bare "objection sustained" with no Section 8(1)(d) competitive-harm test. //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (Delhi HC 2008) requires a speaking order on every §8 invocation.
		+	- Concession agreements are not trade secrets under §8(1)(d) — //Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC 2015) + //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136. Even if a portion is genuinely confidential, §10 severance must be applied. The §8(2) public-interest override applies because the records relate to a publicly-collected toll on a public highway.

-	===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====	+	* Day 22 of appeal (Day 60 from RTI): FAA ordered the PIO to (a) re-issue notice on the redacted (severed) extract under §11(1) read with §10; (b) the third party's response would now be assessed under the proper Section 8(1)(d) competitive-harm test; (c) decision within 30 days. Free of cost under §7(6) since the PIO had crossed Day 30.
-	<html>	+	* Day 38 of appeal (Day 76 from RTI)**: Severed concession agreement supplied. The cost-of-construction figure + post-award technical evaluation minutes were on record. The cost-build-up annexures were redacted under §10 + §8**(1)(d).
-	<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.	+	The decisive lever was the §11(1) 5-day clock breach layered with the non-speaking-order defect and the wrong-clause §8(1)(d) invocation. Each individually was appealable; together they made the PIO's order untenable. Full toll-collection RTI walkthrough: [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/toll-collection\|toll plaza enriched guide]].

-	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 Section 11 procedure — step by step =====

-	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 1. The Public Information Officer forms an initial view ====

-	- {{: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	+	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.
-	- {{: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}}	+

		+	==== Step 2. The five-day notice ====

-	----	+	The notice must issue within five days of receipt of the application. It must

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	* Describe the request in sufficient detail for the third party to identify what information is sought.
-	<html>	+	* State that the Public Information Officer presently intends to disclose the information.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	* Invite the third party to make a written or oral submission within ten days.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	* Give the contact details of the Public Information Officer.
-	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}}	+

-	[<>]	+	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.
		+
		+	==== Step 3. The ten-day representation window ====
		+
		+	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.
		+
		+	==== Step 4. The Public Information Officer decides within forty days ====
		+
		+	The Officer must weigh the third party's submission alongside the applicant's right to information and the public interest. The decision must
		+
		+	* 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.
		+
		+	==== Step 5. The third party's right of appeal ====
		+
		+	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 on RTI Wiki =====
		+
		+	==== Concept 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 — 10 valid §8 grounds + counter-strategies]]
		+	* [[: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
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+
		+	==== Procedure + first-appeal ====
		+
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/first-appeal/faa\|First Appeal under §19(1) — full procedure & sample]]
		+	* [[:guide:applicant:second-appeal:start\|Second Appeal to CIC / SIC]]
		+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for Public Information Officers]]
		+	* [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for First Appellate Authorities]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/start\|Sample RTI applications — 40+ subjects]]
		+	* [[:templates:pio-third-party-notice\|Template: third-party notice under §11]]
		+	* [[:templates:pio-reply-partial-denial\|Template: partial disclosure with severability]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+
		+	==== Sample RTIs that commonly trigger Section 11 ====
		+
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/toll-collection\|Toll plaza RTI — concession agreement, where third party is the concessionaire]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/tender\|Tender RTI — third party is the bidder / awardee]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/mplad\|MPLAD fund RTI — third party is the implementing agency]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/scholarship\|Scholarship RTI — bank as Section 2(f) third party]]
		+	* [[:rti-for-pmay-status\|PMAY RTI — convergence-fund third parties]]
		+	* [[:check-status/voter-id-status\|Voter ID — BLO / AERO procedural records]]
		+
		+	==== Leading decisions ====
		+
		+	* [[: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]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, Delhi HC 2010]]
		+
		+	==== DPDP overlay ====
		+
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025 — practitioner note]]
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to §8(1)(j)]]
		+
		+	==== Other ====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected — 5 common reasons]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] · [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] · [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker-app.html\|PIO Reply Checker]] · [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/timeline-calculator-app.html\|Timeline Calculator]]
		+	===== 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.
		+
		+	{REVIEWED}
		+
		+	//Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team. All citations verified against the RTI Act 2005, the DPDP Act 2023 + DPDP Rules 2025 (in force 14 November 2025), and CIC / SC / HC orders as on 4 May 2026.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations third-party section-11 dpdp-2025 privacy public-interest pio applicant 2026}}

-	~~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}}
		+