Right to Information Wiki

PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC,High Court of Calcutta RTI,RTI §5,RTI §7,RTI §20,PIO transfer,Calcutta HC,§7,§20,successor)&metatag-description=(Transfer of the designated PIO during RTI pendency does not extinguish §7 obligations; successor PIO inherits the duty. PIO transfer mid-pendency: successor.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Calcutta · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PIO transfer mid-pendency: successor inherits §7 obligation; outgoing PIO's §20 liability crystallised at transfer date.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Calcutta \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Successor PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §7, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Transfer of the designated PIO during RTI pendency does not extinguish §7 obligations; successor PIO inherits the duty.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The statutory obligation under §7 attaches to the office of the PIO, not the individual. When a designated PIO is transferred mid-application, the successor inherits the obligation from the date of charge assumption. Any §20 delay attributable to the outgoing PIO crystallises at their date of departure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PIO transfer, Calcutta HC, §7, §20, successor
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020\|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-rti-online-vs-state-portal-2022\|rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-CAL\|All High Court of Calcutta rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-cal section-5 section-7 section-20}}

PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §5,RTI §20,PIO vacancy,§5,§20,vicarious liability,CIC)&metatag-description=(When a designated PIO is unavailable [leave/vacancy], the Head of Institution becomes liable under §20. //PIO vacancy/leave doesn't pause §7 duty; Head of.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	When a designated PIO is unavailable [leave/vacancy], the Head of Institution becomes liable under §20. //PIO vacancy/leave doesn't pause §7 duty; Head of.
	+
	+	//PIO vacancy/leave doesn't pause §7 duty; Head of Institution carries vicarious §20 liability.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	When a designated PIO is unavailable (leave/vacancy), the Head of Institution becomes liable under §20.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Vacancy or long leave of a designated PIO does not pause the public authority's §7 obligation. The Head of Institution is statutorily obliged to ensure a substitute PIO is notified or to discharge the duty personally; default attracts vicarious §20 liability.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PIO vacancy, §5, §20, vicarious liability, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lost-application-pio-liability-2020\|Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-5 section-20}}

PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §5,RTI §20,§5,PIO designation,Delhi HC,§20)&metatag-description=(Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7[1] obligations. Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7[1] obligations. Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations.
	+
	+	//Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations bind the public authority itself.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7(1) obligations.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a public authority has failed to designate a PIO under §5, the statutory obligations under §7(1) continue to bind the public authority. Failure attracts §20 liability traceable to the Head of Institution.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§5, PIO designation, Delhi HC, §20
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020\|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-dinner-break-workdays-pio-2019\|Timing of PIO availability — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-5 section-20}}

Section 20 penalty on PIO for deliberate delay — Madras HC 2020

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Section 20 penalty on PIO for deliberate delay — Madras HC 2020,Madras High Court RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,RTI §20,section 20,PIO penalty,Rs 25 000,reasonable cause,deliberate delay)&metatag-description=(Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20[1] penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.)}}
	+
	+	====== Section 20 penalty on PIO for deliberate delay — Madras HC 2020 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Madras High Court · 2020-09-24 · 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4312
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20[1] penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.
	+
	+	//Deliberate PIO delay without recorded reasonable cause attracts the full §20(1) penalty.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Madras High Court \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-09-24 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4312 \|
	+	^ Bench \| M, ., , G, o, v, i, n, d, a, r, a, j, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| M. Senthil Kumaran \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Information Commission & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1), §19(8)(c), §20(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20(1) penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The SIC's order imposing the statutory maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on the PIO under §20(1) was sustained. Madras HC held that a PIO seeking to avoid penalty must produce contemporaneous evidence of reasonable cause — mechanical assertions of workload or administrative difficulty are inadequate. Where the PIO has shown disregard for the 30-day timeline over multiple RTI applications, the SIC's discretion to impose the statutory maximum is a proper exercise of appellate power under §19(8)(c).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	section 20, PIO penalty, Rs 25,000, reasonable cause, deliberate delay
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-pio-penalty-2020\|§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-pension-delay-2022\|Pension sanction delay — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All Madras High Court rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-madras-hc-pio-penalty-2020/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-7 section-19 section-20}}

Timing of PIO availability — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Timing of PIO availability — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §5,RTI §7,PIO availability,§5,CIC,working hours)&metatag-description=(PIO must be available during working hours; 'Friday only' or 'only mornings' schedules are §5 non-compliant. PIO must be reachable during standard working hours;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Timing of PIO availability — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PIO must be reachable during standard working hours; limited 'slot' availability is §5 non-compliance.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PIO must be available during working hours; 'Friday only' or 'only mornings' schedules are §5 non-compliant.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The designation of a PIO under §5 contemplates availability during normal working hours of the public authority — not restricted slots like 'only Fridays' or 'only 10-11 am'. Such restrictions impede §6 and §2(j) inspection rights and are actionable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PIO availability, §5, CIC, working hours
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-5 section-7}}

Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §5,RTI §7,RTI §20,lost application,receipt register,CIC,§5)&metatag-description=(A misplaced / lost RTI application is no defence; public authority has a §5-read-with-§7 duty to track. 'Lost application' excuse fails; §5+§7 impose a tracking.)}}
	+
	+	====== Lost RTI application — PIO liability — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A misplaced / lost RTI application is no defence; public authority has a §5-read-with-§7 duty to track. 'Lost application' excuse fails; §5+§7 impose a tracking.
	+
	+	//'Lost application' excuse fails; §5+§7 impose a tracking duty on the public authority.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §7, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A misplaced / lost RTI application is no defence; public authority has a §5-read-with-§7 duty to track.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A public authority's inability to locate a received RTI application does not excuse §7 non-response. §5 read with §7 imposes a minimum duty to maintain a receipt register and to be able to track any application. Repeated 'lost' excuses attract §20 liability for the designated PIO / Head of Institution.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	lost application, receipt register, CIC, §5
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020\|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-5 section-7 section-20}}

rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,rtionline.gov.in,§6(3),State transfer,CIC)&metatag-description=(RTI filed on rtionline.gov.in for State-subject matter: Central PIO must transfer under §6[3] to State PIO; not reject. rtionline.gov.in RTI for State matter:.)}}
	+
	+	====== rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	RTI filed on rtionline.gov.in for State-subject matter: Central PIO must transfer under §6[3] to State PIO; not reject. rtionline.gov.in RTI for State matter:.
	+
	+	//rtionline.gov.in RTI for State matter: Central PIO must §6(3) transfer, not reject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	RTI filed on rtionline.gov.in for State-subject matter: Central PIO must transfer under §6(3) to State PIO; not reject.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where an applicant files on rtionline.gov.in (Central portal) but the information falls under a State department's jurisdiction, the receiving Central PIO must transfer under §6(3) to the appropriate State PIO — not reject for wrong forum. The applicant cannot be penalised for portal choice.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	rtionline.gov.in, §6(3), State transfer, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-driver-license-records-2017\|Driving-licence / vehicle registration records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6}}

Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,multi-topic,Delhi HC,§6,§7)&metatag-description=(A PIO may not refuse a multi-topic RTI; each query must be individually evaluated under §8. Multiple topics in one RTI is permitted; PIO must address each.)}}
	+
	+	====== Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A PIO may not refuse a multi-topic RTI; each query must be individually evaluated under §8. Multiple topics in one RTI is permitted; PIO must address each.
	+
	+	//Multiple topics in one RTI is permitted; PIO must address each individually, not reject the whole.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO may not refuse a multi-topic RTI; each query must be individually evaluated under §8.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Act does not bar an applicant from seeking multiple items of information in one application. A PIO cannot reject the entire application as 'too broad'. Each query must be individually evaluated under §8; separate fee can be levied only where the Rules specify.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	multi-topic, Delhi HC, §6, §7
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-rti-online-vs-state-portal-2022\|rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-6 section-7}}

§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,§7(9),alternative form,Delhi HC,reasoned departure)&metatag-description=(A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7[9] must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.)}}
	+
	+	====== §7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7[9] must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.
	+
	+	//§7(9) departures must be reasoned; 'convenience of the PIO' is not a valid ground.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(9) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7(9) must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(9) permits a PIO to provide information in a form different from the one requested only where compliance would 'disproportionately divert the resources' of the public authority or 'be detrimental to the safety or preservation' of the record. Mere convenience is not enough; the departure must be in a written reasoned order.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(9), alternative form, Delhi HC, reasoned departure
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-7}}

§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §6,§6(3),transfer,SC,§20)&metatag-description=(§6[3] 5-day transfer window is strict; delay attributable to the transferring PIO attracts §20. §6(3) 5-day transfer is a strict deadline; delayed transfer → §20.)}}
	+
	+	====== §6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	§6[3] 5-day transfer window is strict; delay attributable to the transferring PIO attracts §20. §6(3) 5-day transfer is a strict deadline; delayed transfer → §20.
	+
	+	//§6(3) 5-day transfer is a strict deadline; delayed transfer → §20 exposure for outgoing PIO.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§6(3) 5-day transfer window is strict; delay attributable to the transferring PIO attracts §20.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§6(3) requires transfer 'as soon as practicable' and in any event within 5 days. Delays beyond this attract §20 exposure for the originating PIO — even though the clock re-starts for the transferee PIO on receipt. The originating PIO's §20 liability crystallises at day 6.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§6(3), transfer, SC, §20
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-rti-online-vs-state-portal-2022\|rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-ptc-transfer-certificate-2020\|School transfer certificate records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-6 landmark}}

Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §10,RTI §19,partial information,severance,§19(1),CIC)&metatag-description=(Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI. Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1).)}}
	+
	+	====== Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI. Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1).
	+
	+	//Partial PIO reply: proper remedy is §19(1) appeal, not a fresh §6 application.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §10, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Where a PIO provides only partial information, the applicant may seek the balance via First Appeal — not a fresh RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	When a PIO provides information in part and withholds the balance without invoking §8 or §10 with reasoned severance, the applicant's remedy is a First Appeal under §19(1) — not a fresh §6 application. Filing fresh RTIs for the withheld portion is procedural waste and does not reset the §7(1) clock.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	partial information, severance, §19(1), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-duplicate-application-2018\|Duplicate RTI applications — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vacancies-anjali-bhardwaj-follow-up-2023\|Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=10\|All RTI cases turning on §10]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-10 section-19}}

§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §6,§6(2),motive,Madras HC,vexatious applications)&metatag-description=(A PIO cannot reject an RTI application on the ground that the applicant has a 'personal motive' or 'harassment intent'. §6(2) bars inquiry into motive; PIO cannot.)}}
	+
	+	====== §6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§6(2) bars inquiry into motive; PIO cannot reject citing applicant's alleged vexatious or malafide intent.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO cannot reject an RTI application on the ground that the applicant has a 'personal motive' or 'harassment intent'.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§6(2) expressly bars a PIO from requiring the applicant to state any reason for seeking information. A PIO cannot reject on the ground of perceived 'malafide', 'harassment intent', or 'vexatious' purpose. §8 is the exclusive ground for refusal.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§6(2), motive, Madras HC, vexatious applications
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-abuse-threshold-2019\|Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-rti-online-vs-state-portal-2022\|rtionline.gov.in vs State portal — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-6}}

PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,§7(2),deemed refusal,Bombay HC,§19(1))&metatag-description=(A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7[2]; First Appeal lies directly. §7(2) deemed refusal is a legal fiction that activates.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(2) deemed refusal is a legal fiction that activates §19(1) appeal rights without a written order.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7(2); First Appeal lies directly.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a PIO fails to provide a response within the §7(1) 30-day window, §7(2) creates a deemed refusal. The applicant is entitled to file a First Appeal under §19(1) without waiting for a formal rejection order, and the FAA must proceed on the merits.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(2), deemed refusal, Bombay HC, §19(1)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-19}}

Union of India v. R. Jayachandran

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Union of India v. R. Jayachandran,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §19,FAA,speaking order,§19,reasoned order)&metatag-description=(FAA speaking orders must engage with the PIO's reasoning; summary dismissals set aside. FAA must issue reasoned 'speaking orders' engaging with PIO reasoning;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Union of India v. R. Jayachandran ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2017-12-12 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//FAA must issue reasoned 'speaking orders' engaging with PIO reasoning; summary dismissals are liable to review.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-12-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Bench \| R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| R. Jayachandran \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	FAA speaking orders must engage with the PIO's reasoning; summary dismissals set aside.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A First Appellate Authority under §19(1) is a quasi-judicial body. Its orders must be 'speaking orders' that analyse the PIO's reasoning, the statutory provision invoked, and the factual matrix. Summary one-line affirmations do not meet this standard.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FAA, speaking order, §19, reasoned order
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018\|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-19}}

PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,§7(8),reasoned order,Bombay HC,speaking order)&metatag-description=(A reasoned order under §7[8][i] must identify the specific §8[1] sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix. §7(8)(i) reasoned refusal must cite the specific.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2014-06-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(8)(i) reasoned refusal must cite the specific sub-clause and link it to the facts; bare citation is not enough.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-06-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(8) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) must identify the specific §8(1) sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) of the Act must identify the specific sub-clause of §8(1) relied upon and demonstrate a nexus with the facts of the application. A bare citation of '§8(1)' is insufficient and liable to be set aside on appeal.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(8), reasoned order, Bombay HC, speaking order
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018\|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-chhattisgarh-rti-tribal-welfare-2022\|Tribal welfare fund records — Chhattisgarh SIC]] (SIC-CG 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-8}}

Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,copy fees,§7(3),CIC,constructive refusal)&metatag-description=(A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19. Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19. Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal;.
	+
	+	//Inflated copy-fees under §7(3) = constructive refusal; directly appealable under §19(1).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO demanding unjustified copy-fees treated as constructive refusal; applicant may appeal under §19.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	When a PIO intimates a copy-fee that is grossly disproportionate to the reasonable photocopy cost — e.g., Rs 500 per page — that amounts to a constructive refusal. The applicant may seek review under §7(3) proviso or directly file a First Appeal under §19(1) treating the inflated fee as a de facto denial.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	copy fees, §7(3), CIC, constructive refusal
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7}}

Inspection charges — Delhi HC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:06 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Inspection charges — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,inspection,§2(j),fees,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Inspection under §2[j] is free for the first hour; subsequent hours attract the statutory fee. First hour of inspection free; subsequent hours charged per RTI.)}}
	+
	+	====== Inspection charges — Delhi HC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//First hour of inspection free; subsequent hours charged per RTI Rules; inspection cannot be refused for non-payment of first-hour fee.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Inspection under §2(j) is free for the first hour; subsequent hours attract the statutory fee.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Per Central RTI Rules, 2012 (and most State rules), inspection of records under §2(j) is free for the first hour. Subsequent hours attract a fee (Rs 5 per 15 min under Central Rules). A PIO cannot refuse inspection citing advance-payment demands for the first hour.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	inspection, §2(j), fees, Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-dinner-break-workdays-pio-2019\|Timing of PIO availability — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-7}}

Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,inspection,§2(j),CIC,records)&metatag-description=(Inspection under §2[j] is a statutory right; PIO must facilitate with advance notice. Inspection under §2(j) is a right, not a favour; PIO must schedule access.)}}
	+
	+	====== Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Inspection under §2[j] is a statutory right; PIO must facilitate with advance notice. Inspection under §2(j) is a right, not a favour; PIO must schedule access.
	+
	+	//Inspection under §2(j) is a right, not a favour; PIO must schedule access reasonably.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Inspection under §2(j) is a statutory right; PIO must facilitate with advance notice.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§2(j) expressly lists 'inspection of works, documents, records' as a facet of the right to information. PIO must facilitate inspection on reasonable notice; cannot refuse inspection and substitute with photocopy only.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	inspection, §2(j), CIC, records
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7}}

CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions,Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) RTI,RTI §8,collegium,judicial appointments,§8(1)(j),CJI office)&metatag-description=(Collegium resolutions announced are public; internal files protected under §8[1][j] subject to public-interest balancing.)}}
	+
	+	====== CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2019-11-13 · (2020) 5 SCC 481 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Collegium's final resolutions disclosable; internal deliberative records subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-11-13 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2020) 5 SCC 481 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, Sanjiv Khanna \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| CPIO Supreme Court \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Collegium resolutions announced are public; internal files protected under §8(1)(j) subject to public-interest balancing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	As a limb of the 2019 Constitution-Bench ruling, the Court held that the collegium's final resolutions (recommendations, transfer orders) are disclosable. Internal files and the reasoning of individual judges remain personal information under §8(1)(j) subject to the public-interest test.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	collegium, judicial appointments, §8(1)(j), CJI office
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Secretary General Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CJI,judges' assets,Delhi HC Full Bench,§2(h),§8(1)(j))&metatag-description=(Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019]. CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets.)}}
	+
	+	====== Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) · 2010-01-12 · ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019]. CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets.
	+
	+	//CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets accessible subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.P. Shah, Vikramajit Sen, S. Muralidhar \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Secretary General, Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI (affirmed by SC 2019).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Voluntary asset declarations made by judges to the CJI are disclosable under RTI subject to §8(1)(j) balancing. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CJI, judges' assets, Delhi HC Full Bench, §2(h), §8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-judicial-salary-2019\|Judges' salary / allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579064/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8 landmark}}

RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC,High Court of Calcutta RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,BPL,fee waiver,Calcutta HC,§6(1))&metatag-description=(BPL certificate is a sufficient basis for fee waiver under §6[1]; PIO cannot demand additional proof. Production of BPL certificate is sufficient for RTI fee.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Calcutta · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Production of BPL certificate is sufficient for RTI fee waiver; no additional proof may be demanded.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Calcutta \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| BPL RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	BPL certificate is a sufficient basis for fee waiver under §6(1); PIO cannot demand additional proof.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The statutory scheme under §6(1) read with the RTI Rules provides full fee exemption for below-poverty-line applicants. Production of a BPL certificate is sufficient; a PIO cannot demand an affidavit or additional proof.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BPL, fee waiver, Calcutta HC, §6(1)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-disability-certificate-2022\|Disability certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-ptc-transfer-certificate-2020\|School transfer certificate records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-CAL\|All High Court of Calcutta rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-cal section-6 section-7}}

Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,central,vigilance,commission)&metatag-description=(Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-09-14 · CIC File No. IK/132956925
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-09-14 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/132956925 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Amit Kumar Srivastava \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central Vigilance Commission \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	central, vigilance, commission
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-v-krishna-kumar-v-central-vigilance-commission-2022-107700\|V Krishna Kumar v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cvc-vigilance-circulars-2020\|CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashutosh-gautam-v-central-information-commission-2023-847630\|Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132956925/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,industrial,policy)&metatag-description=(Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-04-26 · CIC File No. IK/77266213
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-04-26 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/77266213 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Kamal Kishore Arora \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Industrial Policy & ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, industrial, policy
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurav-das-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2021-216083\|Saurav Das v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gita-dewan-verma-v-department-of-agriculture-amp-2023-176042\|Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77266213/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Mohit Agrawal v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mohit Agrawal v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst Ahmedabad ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,gst)&metatag-description=(Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mohit Agrawal v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-09-15 · CIC File No. IK/8143486
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-09-15 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/8143486 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Mohit Agrawal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, gst,
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vinod-kumar-yadav-v-chief-commissioner-of-gst-chan-2021-196952\|Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chandigarh ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-hari-krishan-fulwaria-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-850909\|Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harshvardhan-ratnakar-nan-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-988386\|Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8143486/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Duplicate RTI applications — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Duplicate RTI applications — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,duplicate RTI,repeat applications,CIC)&metatag-description=(Identical RTIs filed at short intervals may be clubbed and responded to once; new queries require fresh disposal. //Identical repeat RTIs: PIO may point to prior.)}}
	+
	+	====== Duplicate RTI applications — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Identical repeat RTIs: PIO may point to prior reply. New / materially different queries = fresh disposal required.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Repeat applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Identical RTIs filed at short intervals may be clubbed and responded to once; new queries require fresh disposal.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where an applicant files substantially identical RTIs within a short window, the PIO may refer to the earlier reply — not a fresh response. New questions or materially changed circumstances require fresh disposal under §7(1). §6(2) motive-inquiry is still barred; this is an efficiency rule, not a motive test.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	duplicate RTI, repeat applications, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vacancies-anjali-bhardwaj-follow-up-2023\|Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up]] (SC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7}}

Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,personnel,&)&metatag-description=(Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-20 · CIC File No. IK/77038623
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-20 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/77038623 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Tinoo Joshi \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Personnel & Training \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal against CPIO's reply dismissed
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, personnel, &
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018\|IB and §24 scope — SC]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashok-kumar-mishra-v-department-of-posts-2021-246789\|Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gita-dewan-verma-v-department-of-agriculture-amp-2023-176042\|Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77038623/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §20,§20,penalty,mala fide,Madras HC,due diligence)&metatag-description=(§20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.)}}
	+
	+	====== §20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§20 penalty requires specific mala-fide or persistent-negligence finding; formal 30-day delay alone is insufficient.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| PIO \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Information Commission \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §20(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A §20(1) penalty cannot be imposed merely because information was provided beyond the 30-day window. The Commission must record a specific finding of mala fide conduct or persistent negligence. Due diligence by the PIO, properly documented, is a defence.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§20, penalty, mala fide, Madras HC, due diligence
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-pension-delay-2022\|Pension sanction delay — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-contempt-of-commission-2020\|Defying Commission order — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-20}}

§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §7,§7(3),fee intimation,SC,30-day clock)&metatag-description=(§7[3] fee intimation stops the 30-day clock; PIO must issue written intimation with right-to-review before charging. §7(3) additional-fee intimation must be.)}}
	+
	+	====== §7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	§7[3] fee intimation stops the 30-day clock; PIO must issue written intimation with right-to-review before charging. §7(3) additional-fee intimation must be.
	+
	+	//§7(3) additional-fee intimation must be WRITTEN and cite right-to-review; stops 30-day clock.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§7(3) fee intimation stops the 30-day clock; PIO must issue written intimation with right-to-review before charging.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(3) requires the PIO to provide written intimation of additional fee payable before providing information beyond the application fee. The intimation must include: (a) the calculation details, (b) the applicant's right to seek review of the calculation, (c) that the 30-day clock stops until fee is paid. Oral/phone intimation does not satisfy §7(3).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(3), fee intimation, SC, 30-day clock
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-nala-fee-2022\|NA / conversion-fee records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-7 landmark}}

RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,disability,§7(4),accessibility,CIC,Braille)&metatag-description=(§7[4] requires PIOs to provide information in accessible formats for persons with sensory disability. //§7(4) mandates PIOs provide information in accessible.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(4) mandates PIOs provide information in accessible formats (Braille/audio/screen-readable) for PwD.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Person with disability \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(4) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§7(4) requires PIOs to provide information in accessible formats for persons with sensory disability.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(4) places an obligation on PIOs to provide assistance to persons with sensory disability to access information. This includes Braille output, audio recordings, screen-reader-compatible digital formats, and assisted inspection.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	disability, §7(4), accessibility, CIC, Braille
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-disability-certificate-2022\|Disability certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-ap-rti-welfare-pension-2022\|YSR welfare pension records — Andhra Pradesh HC]] (HC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7}}

§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint vs appeal,CIC Full Bench)&metatag-description=(§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information. §18 complaint: procedural grievance.)}}
	+
	+	====== §18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§18 complaint: procedural grievance. §19 appeal: substantive denial. Direct §18 for disclosure = not maintainable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The CIC Full Bench reaffirmed the //CIC v. Manipur// (SC 2011) divide: §18 complaints address procedural failures (no PIO appointed, no response even after 30 days), while §19 appeals address substantive refusal. A §18 complaint cannot be used to secure disclosure; that is the §19 path.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§18, §19, complaint vs appeal, CIC Full Bench
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-18 section-19}}

Pension sanction delay — Madras HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Pension sanction delay — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,RTI §20,pension,Madras HC,§19(8)(a),§20)&metatag-description=(Delayed pension sanction + non-disclosure of file status attracts both §19[8][a] compliance direction and §20 penalty exposure.)}}
	+
	+	====== Pension sanction delay — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Pension sanction delay: FAA may direct release + cite PIO §20 exposure; structural remedy under §19(8)(a).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Retired officer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Accountant General \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §19, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Delayed pension sanction + non-disclosure of file status attracts both §19(8)(a) compliance direction and §20 penalty exposure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a pension sanction is stalled and the PIO refuses to disclose file status, the FAA (and later the SIC) may direct immediate processing under §19(8)(a) structural remedy. The PIO's non-disclosure may attract §20(1) penalty. Such combined orders are routine in Madras HC pension-delay cases.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	pension, Madras HC, §19(8)(a), §20
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-defence-pensions-ceremonial-2020\|Defence pension sanction records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-ap-rti-welfare-pension-2022\|YSR welfare pension records — Andhra Pradesh HC]] (HC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-dispute-2022\|Pension commutation dispute — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-7 section-19 section-20}}

Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal,Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities RTI,RTI §19,§19(3),condonation of delay,limitation,Second Appeal)&metatag-description=(Delay in filing §19[3] Second Appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause; Commission has equitable discretion. §19(3) 90-day limit is condonable for sufficient.)}}
	+
	+	====== Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Delay in filing §19[3] Second Appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause; Commission has equitable discretion. §19(3) 90-day limit is condonable for sufficient.
	+
	+	//§19(3) 90-day limit is condonable for sufficient cause; Commission exercises equitable discretion.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Delay in filing §19(3) Second Appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause; Commission has equitable discretion.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	While §19(3) prescribes a 90-day limitation for Second Appeal, the Commission has equitable discretion to condone delay for sufficient cause. Common grounds: illness, change of address, loss of PIO's original order.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§19(3), condonation of delay, limitation, Second Appeal
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-19}}

CJI office disclosure — scope clarification 2025

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CJI office disclosure — scope clarification 2025,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CJI office,collegium,section 2(h),judicial transparency,severability)&metatag-description=(Judicial appointments collegium correspondence is §4[1][b] information; personal disclosures on asset declarations are severable.)}}
	+
	+	====== CJI office disclosure — scope clarification 2025 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2025-01-28 · 2025 SCC OnLine SC 112
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Judicial appointments collegium correspondence is §4[1][b] information; personal disclosures on asset declarations are severable.
	+
	+	//Collegium notings are transparent to the extent they concern public-office functioning.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2025-01-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2025 SCC OnLine SC 112 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A, b, h, a, y, , S, ., , O, k, a, ,, , A, u, g, u, s, t, i, n, e, , G, e, o, r, g, e, , M, a, s, i, h, , J, J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Secretary General, SC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Judicial appointments collegium correspondence is §4(1)(b) information; personal disclosures on asset declarations are severable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Building on the 2019 Constitution-Bench ruling, administrative correspondence of the Chief Justice's office on collegium decisions is part of the public-authority record. Personal asset declarations are severable; functional notings on elevation, transfer and supersession are disclosable subject to §8(2) public-interest balancing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CJI office, collegium, section 2(h), judicial transparency, severability
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-governor-office-2022\|Governor's Office records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-sc-cji-2025/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2 section-8}}

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint,appeal,Commission powers)&metatag-description=(Section 18 [complaint] and Section 19 [appeal] operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.)}}
	+
	+	====== Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2011-12-12 · (2011) 15 SCC 1 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§18 complaint ≠ §19 appeal. Commission cannot direct disclosure of information under §18; only §19 permits that.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-12-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2011) 15 SCC 1 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Chief Information Commissioner \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State of Manipur & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Section 18 (complaint) and Section 19 (appeal) operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The powers of the Commission under §18 (complaint) and §19 (appeal) are distinct. A complaint under §18 is meant for procedural grievances; substantive orders directing disclosure can be made only in an appeal under §19.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§18, §19, complaint, appeal, Commission powers
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138115879/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-18 section-19 landmark}}

Anjanish Pandey v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anjanish Pandey v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Commission upheld the CPIO's decision. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Anjanish Pandey v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-03 · CIC File No. IK/132264804
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission upheld the CPIO's decision. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought denied under section 8(1)(j)//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-03 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/132264804 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Anjanish Pandey \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission upheld the CPIO's decision
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought denied under section 8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/132264804/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Medical records of deceased relative — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Medical records of deceased relative — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,medical records,deceased,next-of-kin,§8(1)(j),§8(2),CIC)&metatag-description=(Medical records of a deceased relative disclosable to next-of-kin subject to §8[2] public-interest balancing. Next-of-kin may access deceased's medical records.)}}
	+
	+	====== Medical records of deceased relative — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Next-of-kin may access deceased's medical records subject to §8(2) balancing; §8(1)(j) narrowly applied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Relative of deceased patient \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Government Hospital \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Medical records of a deceased relative disclosable to next-of-kin subject to §8(2) public-interest balancing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Medical records of a deceased person are not absolutely protected under §8(1)(j). Next-of-kin may access them subject to public-interest balancing under §8(2). Post-DPDP 2025, the framework retains the balancing test through §8(2).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	medical records, deceased, next-of-kin, §8(1)(j), §8(2), CIC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Raj Kumar Rajak v. Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Raj Kumar Rajak v. Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,dr.,harisingh,gaur,vishwa)&metatag-description=(Commission directed the CPIO to provide information. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Raj Kumar Rajak v. Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-12-14 · CIC File No. IK/77535221
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission directed the CPIO to provide information. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information about appellant's PhD thesis//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-12-14 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/77535221 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Raj Kumar Rajak \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission directed the CPIO to provide information
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information about appellant's PhD thesis
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	dr., harisingh, gaur, vishwa
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-praveen-kumar-v-office-of-the-additional-distt-2022-139198\|Praveen Kumar v. Office Of The Additional Distt. ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77535221/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,frivolous,vexatious,§6(2),CIC)&metatag-description=(CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6[2] bars such inquiry. //No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6[2] bars such inquiry. //No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI;.
	+
	+	//No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI; §6(2) bars motive inquiry.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6(2) bars such inquiry.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The RTI Act does not provide for refusal on the ground that the applicant's filings are 'frivolous', 'vexatious' or 'abusive'. §6(2) expressly bars inquiry into motive. The sole route to refusal is a §8 carve-out.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	frivolous, vexatious, §6(2), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-duplicate-application-2018\|Duplicate RTI applications — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7}}

Email filing of RTI — CIC guidance

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Email filing of RTI — CIC guidance,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,email filing,§6(1),CIC,electronic)&metatag-description=(§6[1] expressly permits filing 'through electronic means' — email filing is valid; fee may be paid electronically later.)}}
	+
	+	====== Email filing of RTI — CIC guidance ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	§6[1] expressly permits filing 'through electronic means' — email filing is valid; fee may be paid electronically later.
	+
	+	//§6(1) permits email filing; fee can follow electronically; PIO cannot reject for format.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§6(1) expressly permits filing 'through electronic means' — email filing is valid; fee may be paid electronically later.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§6(1) expressly permits filing 'through electronic means including through the internet'. Email filing is valid. The fee may follow by electronic payment (NEFT/UPI/card); the 30-day clock starts from the date of payment completion. A PIO cannot reject an email RTI for being 'not in paper form'.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	email filing, §6(1), CIC, electronic
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6}}

Governor's Office records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Governor's Office records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,Governor,§2(h),State bills)&metatag-description=(Governor's Secretariat is §2[h]; State-bill reservation records and administrative data disclosable; personal correspondence protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Governor's Office records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Governor's Secretariat = §2(h); State-bill reservation + admin records disclosable; personal correspondence §8(1)(j).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Governor's Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Governor's Secretariat is §2(h); State-bill reservation records and administrative data disclosable; personal correspondence protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A Governor's Secretariat is a public authority under §2(h). Records of State bills reserved for the President, administrative records, and clearance registers are disclosable. Governor's personal correspondence, confidential advice to CM, and ceremonial file notings remain protected under §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(i).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Governor, §2(h), State bills
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-president-office-2021\|Office of the President records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pmo-records-2019\|PMO records scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-high-court-registry-2022\|High Court Registry records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Judges' salary / allowances — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Judges' salary / allowances — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,judges salary,CIC,§4(1)(b)(x))&metatag-description=(Judges' statutory salary, allowances and post-retirement benefits are public records — disclosable under §4. Judges' statutory pay + allowances + post-retirement.)}}
	+
	+	====== Judges' salary / allowances — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Judges' statutory salary, allowances and post-retirement benefits are public records — disclosable under §4. Judges' statutory pay + allowances + post-retirement.
	+
	+	//Judges' statutory pay + allowances + post-retirement benefits = §4 public records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| HC/SC Registry \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Judges' statutory salary, allowances and post-retirement benefits are public records — disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Salaries, allowances and post-retirement benefits of Supreme Court and High Court judges are prescribed by statute (Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Acts) — public records. §4(1)(b)(x) requires proactive publication of the monthly remuneration structure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judges salary, CIC, §4(1)(b)(x)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lok-sabha-mp-salary-2020\|MP salary + allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,DPDP 2025,§8(1)(j),§8(2),Delhi HC,personal information)&metatag-description=(Post-14-November-2025, §8[1][j] protects all personal information; public-interest override flows through §8[2]. Post-DPDP 2025: §8(1)(j) exempts personal info.)}}
	+
	+	====== DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2025-12-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Post-14-November-2025, §8[1][j] protects all personal information; public-interest override flows through §8[2]. Post-DPDP 2025: §8(1)(j) exempts personal info.
	+
	+	//Post-DPDP 2025: §8(1)(j) exempts personal info absolutely; override by §8(2), not the old proviso.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2025-12-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j), §8(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-14-November-2025, §8(1)(j) protects all personal information; public-interest override flows through §8(2).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the DPDP Rules, 2025 amendment to §8(1)(j), personal information of any person is exempt from disclosure. The public-interest override moves out of the old §8(1)(j) proviso and into §8(2) as a balancing provision.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	DPDP 2025, §8(1)(j), §8(2), Delhi HC, personal information
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-police-public-relation-2021\|Police public-relation / RTI-application data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8 landmark}}

Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,transfer orders,Delhi HC,§4(1)(b),postings)&metatag-description=(Posting and transfer orders of public servants, by name and designation, are records of public-authority action — disclosable under §4[1][b].)}}
	+
	+	====== Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Posting and transfer orders of public servants, by name and designation, are records of public-authority action — disclosable under §4[1][b].
	+
	+	//Posting / transfer orders by name and designation are §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Posting authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Posting and transfer orders of public servants, by name and designation, are records of public-authority action — disclosable under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Posting and transfer orders are official acts of the public authority. Name, designation, previous posting, and effective date are part of the administrative record under §4(1)(b)(iii). Reasons for a specific transfer may be protected under §8(1)(j) in a narrow set of cases.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	transfer orders, Delhi HC, §4(1)(b), postings
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-ptc-transfer-certificate-2020\|School transfer certificate records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-4 section-8}}

Defying Commission order — Madras HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Defying Commission order — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,RTI §20,contempt,Madras HC,Commission defiance,§20)&metatag-description=(Willful defiance of a Commission's direction is actionable via contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 through the High Court.)}}
	+
	+	====== Defying Commission order — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Willful defiance of a Commission's direction is actionable via contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 through the High Court.
	+
	+	//Willful defiance of Commission direction is contempt — actionable via Art.215 HC jurisdiction.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Defaulting PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Willful defiance of a Commission's direction is actionable via contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 through the High Court.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information Commissions' directions are binding. Willful and knowing defiance by a PIO / public authority amounts to contempt and may be pursued through the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution, in addition to §20 penalty.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	contempt, Madras HC, Commission defiance, §20
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-23-civil-courts-bar-2017\|§23 civil-courts bar — SC clarification]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-high-court-registry-2022\|High Court Registry records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-pension-delay-2022\|Pension sanction delay — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-18 section-19 section-20}}

Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC),Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RBI,CIC,inspection reports,§8(1)(e),fiduciary)&metatag-description=(RBI directed to disclose inspection reports of banks — foundation for the later SC ruling in Jayantilal Mistry. CIC foundation-ruling: RBI inspection reports.)}}
	+
	+	====== Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CIC foundation-ruling: RBI inspection reports disclosable; fiduciary claim rejected (later affirmed by SC 2015).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various RTI applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	RBI directed to disclose inspection reports of banks — foundation for the later SC ruling in Jayantilal Mistry.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Inspection reports and regulatory findings by RBI concerning commercial banks are held in a regulatory capacity, not a fiduciary one. §8(1)(e) cannot be invoked to refuse them. Later affirmed by the Supreme Court in RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2015).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	RBI, CIC, inspection reports, §8(1)(e), fiduciary
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-cooperative-bank-fraud-2022\|Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Natural justice in Information Commission hearings

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Natural justice in Information Commission hearings,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,natural justice,Commission,quasi-judicial,fair hearing)&metatag-description=(Both parties — applicant and PIO — entitled to fair hearing at the Commission before adverse directions. IC hearings are quasi-judicial; both parties must receive.)}}
	+
	+	====== Natural justice in Information Commission hearings ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Both parties — applicant and PIO — entitled to fair hearing at the Commission before adverse directions. IC hearings are quasi-judicial; both parties must receive.
	+
	+	//IC hearings are quasi-judicial; both parties must receive fair notice and opportunity to be heard.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various appellants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CIC / SIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Both parties — applicant and PIO — entitled to fair hearing at the Commission before adverse directions.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Proceedings before the Information Commission are quasi-judicial. Both the applicant and the public authority must be given fair notice, access to the record, and opportunity to be heard before the Commission passes any direction adversely affecting either party.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	natural justice, Commission, quasi-judicial, fair hearing
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/namit-sharma-v-uoi-2012-sc\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc\|Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-18 section-19}}

Judicial-delay records — SC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Judicial-delay records — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,judicial delay,NJDG,SC,pendency,§4)&metatag-description=(Judicial-delay statistics — case-pendency, case-type backlog, average-age — are public records disclosable under §4. Court-pendency statistics: §4(1)(b).)}}
	+
	+	====== Judicial-delay records — SC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Judicial-delay statistics — case-pendency, case-type backlog, average-age — are public records disclosable under §4. Court-pendency statistics: §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	//Court-pendency statistics: §4(1)(b) disclosable; NJDG data is its discharge of the obligation.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / litigant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| HC Registry \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Judicial-delay statistics — case-pendency, case-type backlog, average-age — are public records disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Court-pendency statistics — pending cases by type and age, oldest pending case per court, average disposal time — are records of the public authority's own functioning. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is the operational discharge of this §4(1)(b) obligation; RTI supplements where NJDG is incomplete.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judicial delay, NJDG, SC, pendency, §4
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-4 section-8}}

§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §22,§22,overriding,Official Secrets Act,non-obstante)&metatag-description=(§22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws — subject to express saving clauses. §22 RTI overrides inconsistent provisions.)}}
	+
	+	====== §22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§22 RTI overrides inconsistent provisions in other laws (e.g., Official Secrets Act) unless expressly saved.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §22 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws — subject to express saving clauses.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§22 of the RTI Act contains a non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over other laws to the extent of inconsistency. Specific saving clauses in other statutes (e.g., cabinet secrecy, official secrets) must be read harmoniously with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§22, overriding, Official Secrets Act, non-obstante
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-mental-health-act-harmony-2020\|RTI § 22 harmony with special laws]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jk-rti-post-370-records-2022\|Post-Article 370 records — J&K HC]] (HC-JK 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/rk-jain-v-uoi-2013-sc\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=22\|All RTI cases turning on §22]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-22 landmark}}

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer),Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) RTI,open government,transparency,Article 19(1)(a),foundational)&metatag-description=(Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19[1][a]; limited by national security etc. Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception.)}}
	+
	+	====== S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 1981-12-30 · AIR 1982 SC 149 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19[1][a]; limited by national security etc. Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception.
	+
	+	//Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception. Open government is the basic rule.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 1981-12-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| AIR 1982 SC 149 \|
	+	^ Bench \| P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, R.S. Pathak, E.S. Venkataramiah \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| S.P. Gupta & Ors. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| — \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19(1)(a); limited by national security etc.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The right to know emanates from the right of free speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a). Disclosure of information is the rule; concealment, the exception.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	open government, transparency, Article 19(1)(a), foundational
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/union-of-india-v-association-for-democratic-reforms-2002-sc\|Union of India v. ADR (2002)]] (SC 2002)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc landmark}}

Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,§4 disclosure,repeat requests,public domain,CIC)&metatag-description=(Information already disclosed under §4 or in public domain can be pointed to, not re-compiled. Where §4 disclosure exists, PIO may direct applicant to the source.)}}
	+
	+	====== Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2012-01-01 · multiple CIC orders
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Information already disclosed under §4 or in public domain can be pointed to, not re-compiled. Where §4 disclosure exists, PIO may direct applicant to the source.
	+
	+	//Where §4 disclosure exists, PIO may direct applicant to the source rather than re-compile.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| multiple CIC orders \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Information already disclosed under §4 or in public domain can be pointed to, not re-compiled.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where information is already suo motu disclosed under §4(1)(b) or is in the public domain, PIO may direct the applicant to the source. The applicant may not demand the same information in a specific form repeatedly.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§4 disclosure, repeat requests, public domain, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-duplicate-application-2018\|Duplicate RTI applications — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Electoral roll copies — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:04 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Electoral roll copies — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,electoral rolls,ERO,CIC,Representation of People)&metatag-description=(Electoral rolls are public records; copies available through statutory ERO-level process [RTI is supplementary]. //Electoral rolls are public records; primary.)}}
	+
	+	====== Electoral roll copies — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Electoral rolls are public records; primary route is ERO/Form-001, RTI is a residual supplement.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Election Commission / ERO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls are public records; copies available through statutory ERO-level process (RTI is supplementary).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls are public records available for inspection at the Electoral Registration Officer's office under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. An RTI route is supplementary where the statutory route fails; the PIO may point to the source under the §4 disclosure framework.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	electoral rolls, ERO, CIC, Representation of People
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-electoral-funding-2023\|Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-kerala-rti-mgnregs-beneficiary-2020\|MGNREGS beneficiary lists — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Hospital inspection reports — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Hospital inspection reports — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,hospitals,inspection reports,CIC,public health)&metatag-description=(Routine inspection and regulatory-compliance reports of hospitals are public-health records — disclosable. //Hospital / nursing-home inspection reports are.)}}
	+
	+	====== Hospital inspection reports — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Hospital / nursing-home inspection reports are public-interest compliance records — disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Hospital / Medical authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Routine inspection and regulatory-compliance reports of hospitals are public-health records — disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Inspection reports prepared by Drugs Control, CGHS, State Medical Councils and similar regulatory bodies on hospitals and nursing homes are compliance records. They are disclosable as public-health information, with narrow §8(1)(j) carve-outs for individual patient data.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	hospitals, inspection reports, CIC, public health
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,Cabinet note,§8(1)(i),CIC,post-decision)&metatag-description=(Cabinet Note disclosable once the decision is announced and the matter concluded [per //R.K. Jain// SC 2013]. Cabinet note disclosable after decision announced;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Cabinet note disclosable after decision announced; §8(1)(i) is not a permanent bar — per //R.K. Jain// (SC 2013).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Cabinet Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(i) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cabinet Note disclosable once the decision is announced and the matter concluded (per //R.K. Jain// SC 2013).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Applying //R.K. Jain// (SC 2013), a Cabinet Note becomes disclosable after the Cabinet decision is taken and announced, and the matter is concluded. The PIO must perform the §8(1)(i) test at the date of the RTI application — not treat cabinet material as permanently secret.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Cabinet note, §8(1)(i), CIC, post-decision
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/rk-jain-v-uoi-2013-sc\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/rajeev-mankotia-v-cic-2012-del-hc\|Rajeev Mankotia v. CIC (file notings)]] (HC-DEL 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,sealed cover,§8(1)(b),CIC,contempt)&metatag-description=(Information expressly forbidden from disclosure by a court's sealed-cover / in-camera order is §8[1][b] protected. //Sealed-cover / in-camera court orders trigger.)}}
	+
	+	====== Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Sealed-cover / in-camera court orders trigger §8(1)(b) protection until the court's order is varied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Various public authorities \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Information expressly forbidden from disclosure by a court's sealed-cover / in-camera order is §8(1)(b) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(b) expressly protects information whose disclosure has been forbidden by any court or tribunal, or whose disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The PIO must cite the specific court order being honoured; blanket invocation is not sufficient.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	sealed cover, §8(1)(b), CIC, contempt
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-contempt-of-commission-2020\|Defying Commission order — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-high-court-registry-2022\|High Court Registry records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

SEBI inspection records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:04 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(SEBI inspection records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,SEBI,§8(1)(d),§8(1)(e),CIC,regulator)&metatag-description=(SEBI inspection records disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry// rationale; commercially-confidential trading data protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== SEBI inspection records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	SEBI inspection records disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry// rationale; commercially-confidential trading data protected.
	+
	+	//SEBI inspection records disclosable; commercial trading data protected under §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| SEBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	SEBI inspection records disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry// rationale; commercially-confidential trading data protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's rationale in //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2015), SEBI's inspection reports on regulated entities are disclosable. Pure commercial trading data (open interest positions, client identities) remains protected under §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	SEBI, §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e), CIC, regulator
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §11,§11,cost,CIC,fee)&metatag-description=(Cost of §11 third-party notice borne by the public authority — not passed on to the applicant. §11 third-party notice cost = public authority's cost; cannot be.)}}
	+
	+	====== §11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Cost of §11 third-party notice borne by the public authority — not passed on to the applicant. §11 third-party notice cost = public authority's cost; cannot be.
	+
	+	//§11 third-party notice cost = public authority's cost; cannot be charged to applicant.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §11 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cost of §11 third-party notice borne by the public authority — not passed on to the applicant.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The cost of issuing a §11 third-party notice — postage, registered mail, any translation — is part of the public authority's statutory disclosure cost. It cannot be added to the applicant's copy-fee or §7(3) intimation.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§11, cost, CIC, fee
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-11}}

RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §6,§2(f),hypothetical,future information,recorded information,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(RTI can seek only recorded information; hypothetical or future-fact questions are outside §2[f]. //RTI seeks recorded information; hypothetical questions / future.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//RTI seeks recorded information; hypothetical questions / future projections are not 'information'.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| PIO \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	RTI can seek only recorded information; hypothetical or future-fact questions are outside §2(f).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The RTI Act, through §2(f), covers recorded information held by the public authority. Questions that seek opinions, hypothetical scenarios, or future-fact projections (e.g., 'what will be the policy next year?') fall outside the definition.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§2(f), hypothetical, future information, recorded information, Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020\|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-6}}

RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,RBI moratorium,loan recast,§8(1)(d),Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Loan-recast eligibility criteria and aggregate uptake disclosable; individual borrower data § 8[1][d]/[j] protected. //Loan-recast criteria + aggregate data.)}}
	+
	+	====== RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Loan-recast criteria + aggregate data disclosable; individual borrower data remains § 8(1)(d)/(j).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Borrower \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Commercial bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Loan-recast eligibility criteria and aggregate uptake disclosable; individual borrower data § 8(1)(d)/(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	RBI moratorium / loan-recast policy documents and aggregate uptake data are §4 disclosures. Bank-wise breakdown may be disclosable subject to commercial-confidence balancing under §8(1)(d). Individual borrower data is §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	RBI moratorium, loan recast, §8(1)(d), Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-assam-rti-citizens-register-2022\|NRC aggregate statistics — Gauhati HC]] (HC-GAU 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-7 section-8}}

RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §7,meta-RTI,statistics,Delhi HC,§4)&metatag-description=(Statistics of RTIs received / decided, and aggregate application data, are public records. //Meta-RTI statistics (received, decided, rejected, transferred) are.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Meta-RTI statistics (received, decided, rejected, transferred) are public records under §4 / §7.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2, §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Statistics of RTIs received / decided, and aggregate application data, are public records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Aggregate statistics of RTI applications received, decided, rejected, transferred, and average response time are records of the public authority's own functioning. They are disclosable under §4(1)(b) and §7; individual applicant identity remains protected under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	meta-RTI, statistics, Delhi HC, §4
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-assam-rti-citizens-register-2022\|NRC aggregate statistics — Gauhati HC]] (HC-GAU 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-judicial-delay-information-2023\|Judicial-delay records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-4 section-7}}

Board-examination records — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Board-examination records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,board exams,CBSE,Delhi HC,Aditya Bandopadhyay)&metatag-description=(Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, board-exam evaluated answer scripts are disclosable on payment of copy fees. Board-exam answer scripts disclosable per Aditya.)}}
	+
	+	====== Board-examination records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Board-exam answer scripts disclosable per //Aditya Bandopadhyay// (SC 2011); PIO cannot delay on administrative grounds.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Student / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBSE / ICSE / State Board \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, board-exam evaluated answer scripts are disclosable on payment of copy fees.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following //Aditya Bandopadhyay//, class 10 and 12 board-exam answer scripts are disclosable under RTI on payment of reasonable copy fees. PIOs cannot delay on grounds of 'administrative load' or 'internal process'; §7(1) 30-day timeline strictly applies.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	board exams, CBSE, Delhi HC, Aditya Bandopadhyay
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-procedural-fee-calculation-2019\|Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §8,RTI §2,cooperative bank,fraud,Bombay HC,§8(1)(h),Jayantilal Mistry)&metatag-description=(Cooperative bank fraud investigations: pending-phase §8[1][h] protected; closure reports and aggregate data disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Cooperative bank fraud investigation: pending-phase §8(1)(h); closed-investigation reports disclosable to depositors.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Depositor / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Registrar of Cooperatives / RBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cooperative bank fraud investigations: pending-phase §8(1)(h) protected; closure reports and aggregate data disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Applying //Jayantilal Mistry//, cooperative bank inspection reports filed with the Registrar / RBI are regulatory records. Active fraud / inspection investigations are protected under §8(1)(h) for the pending phase. Once the investigation closes, the closure report and key findings are disclosable — particularly to depositors whose funds are affected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cooperative bank, fraud, Bombay HC, §8(1)(h), Jayantilal Mistry
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-8 section-2}}

Faceless assessment records — Delhi HC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Faceless assessment records — Delhi HC 2024,Delhi High Court RTI,RTI §8,faceless assessment,CBDT,section 8(1)(j),section 144B,officer anonymity)&metatag-description=(Faceless Assessment Scheme metadata [turnaround time, allocation logic] is disclosable; individual officer names are protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Faceless assessment records — Delhi HC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Delhi High Court · 2024-04-18 · 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2211
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Faceless Assessment Scheme metadata [turnaround time, allocation logic] is disclosable; individual officer names are protected.
	+
	+	//System-level tax-assessment transparency is compatible with officer anonymity.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Delhi High Court \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-04-18 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2211 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Y, a, s, h, w, a, n, t, , V, a, r, m, a, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Ashok Jain \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CPIO, CBDT \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j), §8(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Faceless Assessment Scheme metadata (turnaround time, allocation logic) is disclosable; individual officer names are protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Faceless Assessment Scheme under §144B of the Income-tax Act depends on officer anonymity to function. Scheme-level aggregate data — pendency, turnaround, geographical load — is disclosable under §4(1)(b). Individual allocation of a particular case to a particular officer is protected by §8(1)(j) read with the scheme's statutory anonymity.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	faceless assessment, CBDT, section 8(1)(j), section 144B, officer anonymity
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-income-tax-assessment-own-2022\|Own income-tax assessment order — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-property-tax-assessment-2020\|Property-tax assessment records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cat-rti-service-matters-2024\|CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024]] (CAT 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022\|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All Delhi High Court rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-hc-del-faceless-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Electoral roll revisions — Delhi HC 2025

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Electoral roll revisions — Delhi HC 2025,Delhi High Court RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,electoral rolls,section 4(1)(b),section 8(1)(j),ECI,Form 6)&metatag-description=(Form-6/7/8 statistics and booth-level agent data is §4[1][b]; individual voter addresses remain personal. Electoral-roll governance is transparent; voter privacy.)}}
	+
	+	====== Electoral roll revisions — Delhi HC 2025 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Delhi High Court · 2025-03-11 · 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1089
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Form-6/7/8 statistics and booth-level agent data is §4[1][b]; individual voter addresses remain personal. Electoral-roll governance is transparent; voter privacy.
	+
	+	//Electoral-roll governance is transparent; voter privacy is protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Delhi High Court \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2025-03-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1089 \|
	+	^ Bench \| R, e, k, h, a, , P, a, l, l, i, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Voter Rights Collective \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CEO Delhi \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Form-6/7/8 statistics and booth-level agent data is §4(1)(b); individual voter addresses remain personal.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Special Summary Revision data — Form-6 additions, Form-7 deletions, Form-8 modifications, by Assembly segment — is proactively disclosable under §4(1)(b). Individual voter residence details are §8(1)(j) after DPDP 2025 and require §11 notice before any third-party sharing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	electoral rolls, section 4(1)(b), section 8(1)(j), ECI, Form 6
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018\|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-electoral-funding-2023\|Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel]] (CIC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All Delhi High Court rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-hc-del-electoral-2025/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-4 section-8}}

Urban Co-operative Bank records — Karnataka HC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Urban Co-operative Bank records — Karnataka HC 2024,High Court of Karnataka RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,UCB,co-operative bank,section 2(h),Jayantilal Mistry,Registrar)&metatag-description=(Registrar's inspection reports of UCBs are §2[h] information; individual depositor data remains fiduciary. Co-op regulatory oversight is transparent; member data.)}}
	+
	+	====== Urban Co-operative Bank records — Karnataka HC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Karnataka · 2024-05-15 · 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 1567
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Registrar's inspection reports of UCBs are §2[h] information; individual depositor data remains fiduciary. Co-op regulatory oversight is transparent; member data.
	+
	+	//Co-op regulatory oversight is transparent; member data is fiduciary.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Karnataka \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-05-15 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 1567 \|
	+	^ Bench \| K, r, i, s, h, n, a, , S, ., , D, i, x, i, t, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| UCB Depositors' Assoc \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Registrar Co-op Societies \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Registrar's inspection reports of UCBs are §2(h) information; individual depositor data remains fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Registrar of Co-operative Societies inspection reports of Urban Co-operative Banks are regulatory-authority records under §2(h). Inspection findings, audit observations and compliance-default lists are disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry//. Individual depositor account details remain §8(1)(e).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	UCB, co-operative bank, section 2(h), Jayantilal Mistry, Registrar
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-cooperative-bank-fraud-2022\|Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KAR\|All High Court of Karnataka rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-hc-kar-ucb-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-kar section-2 section-8}}

Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,judicial officer,reasoning,§2(f),information definition)&metatag-description=(Reasoning of a judicial officer is NOT 'information' under §2[f]; only the final order/decision is. Judicial reasoning is not 'information'; PIO cannot be.)}}
	+
	+	====== Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2010-01-04 · (2010) 2 SCC 1 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Judicial reasoning is not 'information'; PIO cannot be compelled to explain a judge's thought process.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-04 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2010) 2 SCC 1 \|
	+	^ Bench \| P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Khanapuram Gandaiah \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Administrative Officer & Ors. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Reasoning of a judicial officer is NOT 'information' under §2(f); only the final order/decision is.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The judicial officer's reasons/opinions in arriving at a decision are not 'information' under §2(f). Only the final decision/order, and the materials on record before it, are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judicial officer, reasoning, §2(f), information definition
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/namit-sharma-v-uoi-2012-sc\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022\|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2 landmark}}

Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §11,§11,third party,procedural requirement,Muniyappan)&metatag-description=(§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.)}}
	+
	+	====== Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2010-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.
	+
	+	//§11 third-party notice omission vitiates the PIO's final order.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where information sought was supplied by a third party in confidence, §11 procedure (notice + 10-day opportunity) is mandatory. Its omission is procedurally fatal and the final order is liable to be set aside.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§11, third party, procedural requirement, Muniyappan
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-section-11-timeline-2011\|§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-11 landmark}}

§3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons'

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§3 — right available to 'citizens' not 'persons',Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §3,RTI §6,§3,citizens,standing,companies,foreign nationals)&metatag-description=(§3 limits the right to 'citizens'; companies, associations, and foreign nationals lack direct standing. //§3 'right to information' is to citizens only; companies.)}}
	+
	+	====== §3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons' ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§3 'right to information' is to citizens only; companies / non-citizens lack direct §3 standing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Foreign national / Non-citizen applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §3, §6 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§3 limits the right to 'citizens'; companies, associations, and foreign nationals lack direct standing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§3 confers the right to information on 'citizens' — interpreted to exclude companies, foreign nationals, and associations as such. An application by a natural-person citizen (including on behalf of an organisation) is the correct route.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§3, citizens, standing, companies, foreign nationals
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/sp-gupta-v-uoi-1981-sc\|S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)]] (SC 1981)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=3\|All RTI cases turning on §3]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-3 section-6}}

Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti case search,rti act section 8 case law search,rti section 11 cases,cic orders search,supreme court rti judgments search,filter rti rulings by section court year,adjudication intelligence)&metatag-description=(Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest.)}}
	+
	+	====== Case-Law Search — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	{{url>https://righttoinformation.wiki/case-search-app.html 100%x1100px noborder\|RTI Case-Law Search}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
	+	Not loading? Open it directly at [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/case-search-app.html\|/case-search-app.html]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What this tool does =====
	+
	+	* Filter by court (SC / every HC / CIC / SIC), RTI Act section, outcome, and year range.
	+	* Search by keyword — parties' names, citation, ratio, keywords.
	+	* Landmark filter — narrow to the 38 most-cited authorities every PIO, FAA and RTI advocate should know.
	+	* One click to open the full editorial summary (with cross-links to related rulings) or the reported judgment on //Indian Kanoon// / Supreme Court Judis.
	+
	+	===== Tips =====
	+
	+	* To find //every case turning on §8(1)(j)//, pick "§8" in the sidebar filter and type ''8(1)(j)'' in the keyword box.
	+	* To find //every Delhi High Court ruling//, pick "Delhi HC" in the Court facet.
	+	* To find //rulings since DPDP 2025//, set year_from=2025 and keyword ''personal information''.
	+	* To find //applicant-friendly precedents for your First Appeal//, filter Outcome = "Applicant allowed" + Court = SC.
	+
	+	===== Reminder on citation =====
	+
	+	Every ratio shown in the search is an editorial compression of the reported judgment. Before citing in any official filing — PIO order, FAA appeal, CIC/SIC submission, High Court writ — always verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki does not warrant legal correctness for any specific dispute. Final adjudication rests with the Commission or Court.
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database home]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Landmark case-law library (editorial)]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:faa-speaking-order-guide\|FAA Speaking-Order Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law search adjudication}}

AFT on pension-file RTI — 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(AFT on pension-file RTI — 2023,Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,AFT,pension,LPC,service verification,section 2(f))&metatag-description=(Armed forces pension file of the retired officer is their own record; AG branch cannot refuse on §8[1][j]. Veteran's pension file is §2(f) information for the.)}}
	+
	+	====== AFT on pension-file RTI — 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi · 2023-11-07 · OA 567/2023
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Armed forces pension file of the retired officer is their own record; AG branch cannot refuse on §8[1][j]. Veteran's pension file is §2(f) information for the.
	+
	+	//Veteran's pension file is §2(f) information for the veteran.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-11-07 \|
	+	^ Citation \| OA 567/2023 \|
	+	^ Bench \| J, u, s, t, i, c, e, , R, a, j, e, n, d, r, a, , M, e, n, o, n, , (, C, h, a, i, r, ), ,, , L, t, , G, e, n, , P, ., M, ., , H, a, r, i, z, , (, M, e, m, b, e, r, ) \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Col. P. Mehta \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of Defence \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Armed forces pension file of the retired officer is their own record; AG branch cannot refuse on §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A retired armed-forces officer's pension fixation file, LPC-cum-data sheet, and service verification records are the officer's own information under §2(f). AG branch refusal under §8(1)(j) is misplaced; the exemption protects third parties. Thirty-day §7(1) timeline must be observed.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	AFT, pension, LPC, service verification, section 2(f)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-defence-pensions-ceremonial-2020\|Defence pension sanction records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cat-rti-service-matters-2024\|CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024]] (CAT 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018\|IB and §24 scope — SC]] (SC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=AFT\|All Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-aft-2023/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-aft section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher records — Allahabad HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher records — Allahabad HC,High Court of Allahabad RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,Basic Shiksha,Allahabad HC,UP,teachers)&metatag-description=(UP Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher appointment lists, vacancy position, and transfer orders are §4[1][b] disclosure. Basic Shiksha Parishad teacher records.)}}
	+
	+	====== Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher records — Allahabad HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Allahabad · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Basic Shiksha Parishad teacher records (aggregate): §4(1)(b); individual service file: §8(1)(j) against third parties.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Allahabad \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicant teacher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Basic Shiksha Parishad \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	UP Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher appointment lists, vacancy position, and transfer orders are §4(1)(b) disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	UP Basic Shiksha Parishad — responsible for primary education in UP — is a public authority. Teacher-appointment lists, vacancy position, transfer orders, school-wise sanctioned strength, and recruitment-round scores are §4(1)(b) material. Individual teacher's service file is accessible to him; third-party access §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Basic Shiksha, Allahabad HC, UP, teachers
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-up-rti-basic-shiksha-2021\|UP Basic Shiksha recruitment dispute records — UP SIC]] (SIC-UP 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-educational-right-to-know-2023\|Education right-to-know — SC directive]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-education-policy-2024\|NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-service-book-personal-2021\|Service book disclosure to public servant — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-UP\|All High Court of Allahabad rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-up section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC,High Court of Allahabad RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,land records,mutation,Allahabad HC,§4(1)(b),revenue)&metatag-description=(Land records, mutation entries and revenue records are proactively disclosable under §4[1][b]. Land records and mutation entries are §4 suo-motu category; must be.)}}
	+
	+	====== Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Allahabad · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Land records, mutation entries and revenue records are proactively disclosable under §4[1][b]. Land records and mutation entries are §4 suo-motu category; must be.
	+
	+	//Land records and mutation entries are §4 suo-motu category; must be routinely accessible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Allahabad \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Revenue authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Land records, mutation entries and revenue records are proactively disclosable under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Land revenue records — khatauni, khasra, mutation entries — are public records held by revenue authorities. These fall within the suo-motu disclosure obligation under §4(1)(b) and cannot be withheld under routine §8 grounds.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	land records, mutation, Allahabad HC, §4(1)(b), revenue
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ap-rti-land-acquisition-2022\|Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC]] (SIC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/mazdoor-kisan-shakti-sangathan-v-uoi-2018-sc\|Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-kerala-rti-beverage-corporation-2022\|Kerala Beverage Corp records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-tamil-nadu-land-acquisition-2022\|Land-acquisition public-purpose documentation — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-sikkim-rti-tourism-project-2020\|Tourism project records — Sikkim HC]] (HC-SK 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-UP\|All High Court of Allahabad rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-up section-4 section-7}}

Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,BPSC,interview marks,§8(1)(g),recruitment)&metatag-description=(Interview marks of candidate disclosable to that candidate; interviewer's identity not. Candidate's own interview marks disclosable; interviewer identity protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-12-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Interview marks of candidate disclosable to that candidate; interviewer's identity not. Candidate's own interview marks disclosable; interviewer identity protected.
	+
	+	//Candidate's own interview marks disclosable; interviewer identity protected under §8(1)(g).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-12-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Bihar Public Service Commission \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTI applicants \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interview marks of candidate disclosable to that candidate; interviewer's identity not.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A candidate is entitled to his own interview-assessment marks and the marking framework; the identity of individual interview-panel members remains protected under §8(1)(g) to prevent pressure or intimidation.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BPSC, interview marks, §8(1)(g), recruitment
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-qualification-dispute-2019\|Recruitment qualification-dispute records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8}}

Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,interview panel,§8(1)(g),BPSC,recruitment)&metatag-description=(Interview-panel member identities protected under §8[1][g] to prevent intimidation; marks disclosable. Names of interview-panel members protected under §8(1)(g);.)}}
	+
	+	====== Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-12-13 · (2012) 13 SCC 61 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Interview-panel member identities protected under §8[1][g] to prevent intimidation; marks disclosable. Names of interview-panel members protected under §8(1)(g);.
	+
	+	//Names of interview-panel members protected under §8(1)(g); candidate's own marks disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-12-13 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2012) 13 SCC 61 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Swatanter Kumar, Madan B. Lokur \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Bihar Public Service Commission \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interview-panel member identities protected under §8(1)(g) to prevent intimidation; marks disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The identity of members on an interview panel is protected under §8(1)(g) because disclosure could endanger or subject them to pressure. However, the candidate's own marks and the overall evaluation methodology are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	interview panel, §8(1)(g), BPSC, recruitment
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-qualification-dispute-2019\|Recruitment qualification-dispute records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187127108/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}

Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §2,aided schools,Bombay HC,§2(h),education)&metatag-description=(Government-aided private schools receiving salary grants are public authorities under §2[h]. Aided private schools (salary-grant recipients) are public authorities.)}}
	+
	+	====== Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Government-aided private schools receiving salary grants are public authorities under §2[h]. Aided private schools (salary-grant recipients) are public authorities.
	+
	+	//Aided private schools (salary-grant recipients) are public authorities under §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Aided private school \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Government-aided private schools receiving salary grants are public authorities under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Private schools that receive salary grants from State governments for their teaching staff are 'substantially financed' within the meaning of §2(h) and are public authorities obliged to comply with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	aided schools, Bombay HC, §2(h), education
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-ptc-transfer-certificate-2020\|School transfer certificate records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lok-sabha-mp-salary-2020\|MP salary + allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-2}}

BMC slum-redevelopment records — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(BMC slum-redevelopment records — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,SRA,slum,Bombay HC,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(SRA slum-redevelopment project records, eligibility lists, and allotment orders are §4[1][b] proactive-disclosure material.)}}
	+
	+	====== BMC slum-redevelopment records — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//SRA slum-redevelopment records: eligibility lists + allotment orders = §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Slum-dweller / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| SRA / BMC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	SRA slum-redevelopment project records, eligibility lists, and allotment orders are §4(1)(b) proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Maharashtra administers slum-redevelopment schemes funded by public money. Eligibility registers, scheme approvals, allotment records, and developer-DCR compliance are §4(1)(b) material — proactive disclosure on the SRA portal is mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	SRA, slum, Bombay HC, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-dda-records-2019\|DDA housing records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jharkhand-rti-ration-scheme-2021\|PDS scheme records — Jharkhand HC]] (HC-JH 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-haryana-rti-hsvp-records-2022\|HSVP housing records — Haryana SIC]] (SIC-HR 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-jharkhand-rti-mining-2022\|Mining district-fund records — Jharkhand SIC]] (SIC-JH 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-4 section-7}}

RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §2,Medical Council,§2(h),Bombay HC,statutory councils)&metatag-description=(Statutory professional councils [MCI, Bar Council, State Medical Councils] are 'public authorities' under §2[h]. Statutory professional councils are public.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Statutory professional councils [MCI, Bar Council, State Medical Councils] are 'public authorities' under §2[h]. Statutory professional councils are public.
	+
	+	//Statutory professional councils are public authorities under §2(h); must comply with RTI Act.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Medical Council of India / State Medical Council \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Statutory professional councils (MCI, Bar Council, State Medical Councils) are 'public authorities' under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Statutory professional councils — such as the Medical Council of India, Bar Council, State Medical Councils — are established by statute and exercise regulatory functions. They are 'public authorities' under §2(h) and obliged to comply with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Medical Council, §2(h), Bombay HC, statutory councils
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-2}}

§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §24,RTI §8,§24 proviso,Bombay HC,corruption,human rights)&metatag-description=(§24 proviso activates for corruption and human-rights violations; CIC Central Govt approval required. //§24 exemption does NOT apply to corruption / human-rights.)}}
	+
	+	====== §24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§24 exemption does NOT apply to corruption / human-rights complaints — proviso forces disclosure path.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Citizen / complainant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Exempt organisation under §24 \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§24 proviso activates for corruption and human-rights violations; CIC Central Govt approval required.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The proviso to §24 carves out two categories from the exempt-organisation notification — allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Such RTIs proceed via the CIC with Central Government approval; a blanket §24 refusal is not available for them.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§24 proviso, Bombay HC, corruption, human rights
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-police-public-relation-2021\|Police public-relation / RTI-application data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cbi-investigation-closure-2020\|CBI closure reports — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-mass-surveillance-transparency-2022\|Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-24 section-8}}

CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024,Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi RTI,RTI §8,RTI §19,CAT,service record,section 8(1)(j),ACR,own record)&metatag-description=(Service record of a transferred officer is accessible to the officer under §2[f]; non-disclosure by department is procedurally bad.)}}
	+
	+	====== CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi · 2024-02-28 · OA 1234/2023
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Service record of a transferred officer is accessible to the officer under §2[f]; non-disclosure by department is procedurally bad.
	+
	+	//An officer's own service record is their information, not third-party.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-02-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| OA 1234/2023 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A, ., K, ., , M, e, h, t, a, , (, A, d, m, i, n, ), ,, , P, r, a, d, e, e, p, , K, u, m, a, r, , (, J, u, d, i, c, i, a, l, ) \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| R.K. Choudhury \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of Home Affairs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j), §19(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Service record of a transferred officer is accessible to the officer under §2(f); non-disclosure by department is procedurally bad.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The CAT held that an officer's own personal file, ACRs and posting history constitute information about the officer under §2(f). The Department cannot deny access to the officer on §8(1)(j) grounds because the statutory exemption protects others' personal information, not the officer's own. RTI is the correct route where departmental mechanisms fail.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CAT, service record, section 8(1)(j), ACR, own record
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022\|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018\|IB and §24 scope — SC]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/aft-rti-pension-records-2023\|AFT on pension-file RTI — 2023]] (AFT 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CAT\|All Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-cat-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cat section-8 section-19}}

Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,answer scripts,CIC,CBSE,UPSC,examinations,§7(1))&metatag-description=(CIC repeatedly directs examination bodies to disclose answer scripts within RTI timelines following Aditya Bandopadhyay.)}}
	+
	+	====== Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, answer-script disclosure is the rule; CIC enforces §7(1) timelines strictly.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various examinees \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBSE / UPSC / State Boards \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC repeatedly directs examination bodies to disclose answer scripts within RTI timelines following Aditya Bandopadhyay.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's Aditya Bandopadhyay ruling, the CIC has repeatedly directed CBSE, UPSC, State PSCs and State Boards to provide access to evaluated answer scripts within standard §7(1) timelines, subject only to reasonable photocopy fees.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	answer scripts, CIC, CBSE, UPSC, examinations, §7(1)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/upsc-v-angesh-kumar-2018-sc\|UPSC v. Angesh Kumar]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/central-board-secondary-education-v-central-information-commission-2011-delhi-hc\|CBSE v. Central Information Commission]] (HC-DEL 2011)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

CBSE v. Central Information Commission

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CBSE v. Central Information Commission,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CBSE,moderation,grace marking,Delhi HC,§2(f))&metatag-description=(CBSE directed to disclose scheme of moderation and grace marking used in examinations. Moderation & grace-marking schemes are 'information' under §2(f); not exempt.)}}
	+
	+	====== CBSE v. Central Information Commission ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	CBSE directed to disclose scheme of moderation and grace marking used in examinations. Moderation & grace-marking schemes are 'information' under §2(f); not exempt.
	+
	+	//Moderation & grace-marking schemes are 'information' under §2(f); not exempt as fiduciary.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Bench \| Vipin Sanghi \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| CBSE \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central Information Commission & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CBSE directed to disclose scheme of moderation and grace marking used in examinations.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Moderation schemes and grace-marking policies used to normalise examination results are 'information' held by the examining body and are disclosable. The fiduciary exemption does not extend to post-examination normalisation policy.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CBSE, moderation, grace marking, Delhi HC, §2(f)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/upsc-v-angesh-kumar-2018-sc\|UPSC v. Angesh Kumar]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432849/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Akhilesh Godi v. Department Of Legal Affairs — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Akhilesh Godi v. Department Of Legal Affairs — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,legal,affairs)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion or litigation records. Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion.)}}
	+
	+	====== Akhilesh Godi v. Department Of Legal Affairs — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-06-05 · CIC File No. IK/185146573
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion or litigation records. Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion or litigation records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-06-05 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/185146573 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Akhilesh Godi \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Legal Affairs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Department of Legal Affairs on legal opinion or litigation records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Rendered opinions on concluded matters lose privilege post-decision; live advisory files attract §8(1)(e).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, legal, affairs
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-k-nagaraj-v-ministry-of-home-affairs-2021-732333\|K Nagaraj v. Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shri-v-konda-naik-vs-ministry-of-home-2023-158365\|Shri v. Konda Naik vs Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashok-kumar-mishra-v-department-of-posts-2021-246789\|Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/185146573/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-11-21 · CIC File No. IK/122742244
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-11-21 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/122742244 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Amrita Chatterjee \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122742244/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,personnel,&)&metatag-description=(Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-08 · CIC File No. IK/38354002
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-08 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/38354002 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Anil Yadav \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Personnel & Training \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, personnel, &
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018\|IB and §24 scope — SC]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashok-kumar-mishra-v-department-of-posts-2021-246789\|Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gita-dewan-verma-v-department-of-agriculture-amp-2023-176042\|Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38354002/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,space)&metatag-description=(Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest.)}}
	+
	+	====== Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-03-08 · CIC File No. IK/166633744
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-03-08 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/166633744 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Anne Matilda B \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Space \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission dismissed the appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, space
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-isro-public-records-2019\|ISRO non-operational records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-space-exports-2023\|Space-sector exports/clearances — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashok-kumar-mishra-v-department-of-posts-2021-246789\|Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166633744/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-11-16 · CIC File No. IK/101930482
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.
	+
	+	//Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-11-16 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/101930482 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Ashish Bansal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An assessee's own assessment records are §2(f) and accessible; third-party assessment details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-amrita-chatterjee-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-122742\|Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101930482/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,department,of,posts)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI to the Department of Posts. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Department Of Posts — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-04-28 · CIC File No. IK/24678946
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Department of Posts. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI to the Department of Posts.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-04-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/24678946 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Ashok Kumar Mishra \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Posts \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Department of Posts.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Post office network data is §4(1)(b); individual account data §8(1)(e) fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, posts
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anne-matilda-b-v-department-of-space-2022-166633\|Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gita-dewan-verma-v-department-of-agriculture-amp-2023-176042\|Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-akhilesh-godi-v-department-of-legal-affairs-2023-185146\|Akhilesh Godi v. Department Of Legal Affairs — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24678946/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,central,information,commission)&metatag-description=(Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information Commission. Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ashutosh Gautam v. Central Information Commission — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-16 · CIC File No. IK/84763035
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information Commission. Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information.
	+
	+	//Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information Commission.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-16 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/84763035 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Ashutosh Gautam \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered a procedural second-appeal matter before the Central Information Commission.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Commission exercised its §19(3) power to dispose of the second appeal with directions on §10 severance and §11 notice compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	central, information, commission
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-v-krishna-kumar-v-central-vigilance-commission-2022-107700\|V Krishna Kumar v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-amit-kumar-srivastava-v-central-vigilance-commission-2022-132956\|Amit Kumar Srivastava v. Central Vigilance Commission — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-om-prakash-kashiram-v-central-board-of-indirect-taxe-2022-128735\|Om Prakash Kashiram v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84763035/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-18 section-19}}

Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,employees,provident,fund,organisation)&metatag-description=(Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026.)}}
	+
	+	====== Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-04-28 · CIC File No. IK/102026353
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-04-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/102026353 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Asis Narayan Biswas \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Employees Provident Fund Organisation \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal allowed with directions
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	employees, provident, fund, organisation
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kuldeep-parashar-v-employees-provident-fund-organ-2023-150502\|Kuldeep Parashar v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-records-2021\|EPFO account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-defaulters-2022\|EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102026353/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,steel,authority,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-05-24 · CIC File No. IK/151797228
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-05-24 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/151797228 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| B. D. Singh \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	steel, authority, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151797228/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,biometric,Aadhaar,UIDAI,§8(1)(j),CIC)&metatag-description=(Individual biometric data in UIDAI custody absolutely protected under §8[1][j] + Aadhaar Act privacy provisions. UIDAI biometric data absolutely protected;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Individual biometric data in UIDAI custody absolutely protected under §8[1][j] + Aadhaar Act privacy provisions. UIDAI biometric data absolutely protected;.
	+
	+	//UIDAI biometric data absolutely protected; §8(1)(j) + Aadhaar Act privacy override RTI access.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| UIDAI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Individual biometric data in UIDAI custody absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) + Aadhaar Act privacy provisions.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Individual biometric data (fingerprints, iris) in UIDAI custody is absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) read with §28 and §33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. No public-interest override can compel its disclosure; even the data subject's own biometric template is not released.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	biometric, Aadhaar, UIDAI, §8(1)(j), CIC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-uidai-own-aadhaar-2022\|UIDAI own-Aadhaar access — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-aadhaar-seeding-2021\|Aadhaar-seeding records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-mental-health-act-harmony-2020\|RTI § 22 harmony with special laws]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-kerala-rti-mgnregs-beneficiary-2020\|MGNREGS beneficiary lists — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 landmark}}

Blacklisted contractors — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:02 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Blacklisted contractors — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,blacklist,debarred contractors,§4,CIC,PSU)&metatag-description=(Blacklisted-contractor lists are §4 proactive-disclosure material. Blacklist of contractors & suppliers must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).)}}
	+
	+	====== Blacklisted contractors — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Blacklisted-contractor lists are §4 proactive-disclosure material. Blacklist of contractors & suppliers must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	//Blacklist of contractors & suppliers must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public sector undertaking \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Blacklisted-contractor lists are §4 proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Lists of blacklisted, debarred, or suspended contractors and suppliers are public-interest records. §4(1)(b) requires such lists to be proactively published — including grounds of debarment and the duration.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	blacklist, debarred contractors, §4, CIC, PSU
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jharkhand-rti-ration-scheme-2021\|PDS scheme records — Jharkhand HC]] (HC-JH 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,mid-day meal,§4(1)(b)(xii),CIC,education)&metatag-description=(Mid-day Meal scheme records — beneficiaries, rations, expenditure — are §4[1][b][xii] material. MDM scheme records are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme material;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Mid-day Meal scheme records — beneficiaries, rations, expenditure — are §4[1][b][xii] material. MDM scheme records are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme material;.
	+
	+	//MDM scheme records are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme material; must be proactively disclosed.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Parent / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Education department / school \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(xii) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Mid-day Meal scheme records — beneficiaries, rations, expenditure — are §4(1)(b)(xii) material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Mid-day Meal scheme is a centrally-sponsored subsidy programme. §4(1)(b)(xii) requires proactive disclosure of beneficiaries enrolled, food-grain and cash component received, and expenditure at the school/block/district level.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	mid-day meal, §4(1)(b)(xii), CIC, education
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-punjab-rti-saci-records-2021\|SACI / agri-subsidy records — Punjab HC]] (HC-PB 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jharkhand-rti-ration-scheme-2021\|PDS scheme records — Jharkhand HC]] (HC-JH 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-palanhar-scheme-2022\|Palanhar Scheme records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-odisha-rti-kalia-scheme-2023\|KALIA scheme records — Odisha HC]] (HC-ORI 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,charitable trust,§2(h),substantial financing,CIC,Thalappalam)&metatag-description=(Charitable trusts receiving substantial State grants come within §2[h], following Thalappalam test. Trusts receiving substantial State financing are public.)}}
	+
	+	====== Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Trusts receiving substantial State financing are public authorities under §2(h) — Thalappalam applied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Charitable Trust \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Charitable trusts receiving substantial State grants come within §2(h), following Thalappalam test.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A charitable trust receiving grant-in-aid, land allotment at concessional rates, or other substantial State benefits falls within §2(h) 'substantially financed' prong of the Thalappalam test.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	charitable trust, §2(h), substantial financing, CIC, Thalappalam
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,punjab,&,sind,bank)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-09-21 · CIC File No. IK/135674411
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-09-21 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/135674411 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Punjab & Sind Bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	punjab, &, sind, bank
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-durgesh-kuwar-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2022-219967\|Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harkirat-singh-ghuman-v-punjab-amp-haryana-high-court-2022-147421\|Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-sardana-v-canara-bank-2021-140818\|Samir Sardana v. Canara Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/135674411/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Departmental proceedings records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Departmental proceedings records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,disciplinary,CCS(CCA),§8(1)(h),CIC,service)&metatag-description=(Pending departmental proceedings protected under §8[1][h]; concluded proceedings disclosable to the officer concerned. Active disciplinary proceedings: §8(1)(h).)}}
	+
	+	====== Departmental proceedings records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Active disciplinary proceedings: §8(1)(h) applies. Concluded proceedings: disclosable to the affected officer.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Affected officer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Disciplinary authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Pending departmental proceedings protected under §8(1)(h); concluded proceedings disclosable to the officer concerned.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of pending departmental inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules are protected under §8(1)(h). Once the inquiry concludes (charge-sheet, inquiry report, competent authority's final order), all records are disclosable to the officer concerned.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	disciplinary, CCS(CCA), §8(1)(h), CIC, service
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-parliament-secretariat-2019\|Parliament Secretariat RTI scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-manipur-rti-assembly-records-2021\|Assembly proceedings and constituency-fund records — Manipur HC]] (HC-MN 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Dr. Santosh Narayan Mehrotra v. National Medical Commission (Nmc)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Dr. Santosh Narayan Mehrotra v. National Medical Commission (Nmc) — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,RTI §19,national,medical,commission,(nmc))&metatag-description=(Commission decided on appellant's appeal. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Dr. Santosh Narayan Mehrotra v. National Medical Commission (Nmc) ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-09-29 · CIC File No. IK/165500493
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided on appellant's appeal. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought under RTI Act//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-09-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/165500493 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Dr. Santosh Narayan Mehrotra \|
	+	^ Respondent \| National Medical Commission (Nmc) \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3), §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided on appellant's appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought under RTI Act
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	national, medical, commission, (nmc)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165500493/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8 section-19}}

Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,punjab,&,sind,bank)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-05-27 · CIC File No. IK/21996740
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-05-27 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/21996740 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Durgesh Kuwar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Punjab & Sind Bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	punjab, &, sind, bank
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-chayan-ghosh-chowdhury-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2021-135674\|Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harkirat-singh-ghuman-v-punjab-amp-haryana-high-court-2022-147421\|Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-sardana-v-canara-bank-2021-140818\|Samir Sardana v. Canara Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21996740/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,EIA,environmental clearance,§4,CIC,MoEFCC)&metatag-description=(EIA reports, public-hearing records and environmental clearances are §4 proactive-disclosure material. EIA reports + public-hearing records are §4(1)(b) proactive.)}}
	+
	+	====== Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	EIA reports, public-hearing records and environmental clearances are §4 proactive-disclosure material. EIA reports + public-hearing records are §4(1)(b) proactive.
	+
	+	//EIA reports + public-hearing records are §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure — must be published.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Environmental activist \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MoEF / SEIAA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	EIA reports, public-hearing records and environmental clearances are §4 proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Environmental Impact Assessment reports, public-hearing records, and Environmental Clearance letters issued by MoEFCC/SEIAA are documents of public concern under §4(1)(b). They must be proactively published on the relevant portal; any §8 carve-out must be narrowly applied.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	EIA, environmental clearance, §4, CIC, MoEFCC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-environmental-clearance-granted-2020\|Environmental clearance grant records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-coal-india-mining-2021\|Coal India mining records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-himachal-rti-forest-clearance-2020\|Forest clearance records — Himachal HC]] (HC-HP 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-sikkim-rti-tourism-project-2020\|Tourism project records — Sikkim HC]] (HC-SK 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,FCRA,NGO,MHA,§2(h),CIC)&metatag-description=(FCRA-registered NGOs are not public authorities per se; but the MHA holds compliance records disclosable under RTI. FCRA-registered NGOs aren't §2(h); but MHA's.)}}
	+
	+	====== Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	FCRA-registered NGOs are not public authorities per se; but the MHA holds compliance records disclosable under RTI. FCRA-registered NGOs aren't §2(h); but MHA's.
	+
	+	//FCRA-registered NGOs aren't §2(h); but MHA's compliance records on them ARE disclosable under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA / NGO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	FCRA-registered NGOs are not public authorities per se; but the MHA holds compliance records disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An NGO registered under the FCRA is not a 'public authority' under §2(h) by that registration alone. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs holds their foreign-contribution returns and compliance records — these are records of a public authority and disclosable subject to §8(1)(d) privacy carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, NGO, MHA, §2(h), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-ngo-fcra-compliance-2021\|NGO FCRA-compliance scrutiny — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:02 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,FCRA,NGO returns,MHA,CIC)&metatag-description=(Annual FCRA returns of NGOs filed with MHA are public records disclosable under RTI. FCRA annual returns filed with MHA are public records — foreign-source,.)}}
	+
	+	====== FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Annual FCRA returns of NGOs filed with MHA are public records disclosable under RTI. FCRA annual returns filed with MHA are public records — foreign-source,.
	+
	+	//FCRA annual returns filed with MHA are public records — foreign-source, purpose-use disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Annual FCRA returns of NGOs filed with MHA are public records disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Under §4(1)(b) read with FCRA Rules, the annual returns (FC-4) filed by foreign-contribution recipient NGOs with MHA are public compliance records. Purpose-of-use, donor name, and utilisation details are disclosable subject to narrow §8(1)(d) carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, NGO returns, MHA, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-ngo-fcra-compliance-2021\|NGO FCRA-compliance scrutiny — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

G L N Prasad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(G L N Prasad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,bharat,petroleum,corporation,limited)&metatag-description=(Commission disposed of the complaint. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== G L N Prasad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-08-18 · CIC File No. IK/123119652
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the complaint. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-08-18 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/123119652 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| G L N Prasad \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the complaint
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	bharat, petroleum, corporation, limited
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-185668\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-140531\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-neeraj-kedia-v-hindustan-petroleum-corporatio-2021-389371\|Neeraj Kedia v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-k-balu-v-bharat-heavy-electricals-limit-2022-661909\|K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-kerala-rti-beverage-corporation-2022\|Kerala Beverage Corp records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123119652/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,university,of,delhi)&metatag-description=(Commission upheld the respondent's decision. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-09-27 · CIC File No. IK/155347328
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission upheld the respondent's decision. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information about appellant's exam//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-09-27 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/155347328 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gangaram \|
	+	^ Respondent \| University Of Delhi \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission upheld the respondent's decision
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information about appellant's exam
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	university, of, delhi
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-sardana-v-canara-bank-2021-140818\|Samir Sardana v. Canara Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155347328/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,department,of,agriculture,&)&metatag-description=(Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-08-29 · CIC File No. IK/176042978
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Gita Dewan Verma v. Department Of Agriculture & ... — CIC 2023. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-08-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/176042978 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gita Dewan Verma \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department Of Agriculture & ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal and complaint disposed of
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	department, of, agriculture, &
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anil-yadav-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-383540\|Anil Yadav v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-tinoo-joshi-v-department-of-personnel-amp-tr-2021-770386\|Tinoo Joshi v. Department Of Personnel & Training — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurav-das-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2021-216083\|Saurav Das v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-kishore-arora-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2022-772662\|Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-education-policy-2024\|NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176042978/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Gita Dewan Verma v. Niti Aayog — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gita Dewan Verma v. Niti Aayog — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,niti,aayog)&metatag-description=(Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gita Dewan Verma v. Niti Aayog — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-08-11 · CIC File No. IK/10282241
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-08-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/10282241 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gita Dewan Verma \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Niti Aayog \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	niti, aayog
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-niti-aayog-2023\|NITI Aayog records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurav-das-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2021-216083\|Saurav Das v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-kishore-arora-v-department-of-industrial-polic-2022-772662\|Kamal Kishore Arora v. Department Of Industrial Policy & ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10282241/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Gopal Krishan Gupta v. Indian Air Force — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gopal Krishan Gupta v. Indian Air Force — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,indian,air,force)&metatag-description=(Appeals partly allowed and remanded. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gopal Krishan Gupta v. Indian Air Force — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-09-29 · CIC File No. IK/150874202
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeals partly allowed and remanded. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information exempt under sections 8(1)(e) and (j)//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-09-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/150874202 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gopal Krishan Gupta \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Indian Air Force \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| remanded \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeals partly allowed and remanded
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information exempt under sections 8(1)(e) and (j)
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	indian, air, force
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ed-search-seizure-2024\|ED search-and-seizure records — Supreme Court 2024]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-police-public-relation-2021\|Police public-relation / RTI-application data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150874202/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

GST Council — public authority status (CIC)

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(GST Council — public authority status (CIC),Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,GST Council,§2(h),CIC,minutes)&metatag-description=(GST Council Secretariat is a 'public authority' under §2[h]; minutes of meetings disclosable subject to §8[1][i] time-lag.)}}
	+
	+	====== GST Council — public authority status (CIC) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//GST Council is a §2(h) public authority; minutes disclosable subject to §8(1)(i) cabinet-deliberation timing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| GST Council Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	GST Council Secretariat is a 'public authority' under §2(h); minutes of meetings disclosable subject to §8(1)(i) time-lag.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The GST Council, constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution with its own secretariat, is a public authority under §2(h). Its meeting agenda and minutes are disclosable; ongoing-deliberation content may be temporarily withheld under §8(1)(i) until decisions are taken.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	GST Council, §2(h), CIC, minutes
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iso-cii-business-bodies-2019\|Trade-body interactions with government — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

Gulshan Kumar v. Delhi Police — CIC 2023

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Gulshan Kumar v. Delhi Police — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,delhi,police)&metatag-description=(Appeal disposed of by Commission. Gulshan Kumar v. Delhi Police — CIC 2023. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Gulshan Kumar v. Delhi Police — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-08-25 · CIC File No. IK/59185493
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Gulshan Kumar v. Delhi Police — CIC 2023. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-08-25 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/59185493 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Gulshan Kumar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Delhi Police \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal disposed of by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	delhi, police
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-varun-krishna-v-delhi-police-2022-739251\|Varun Krishna v. Delhi Police — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vikram-singh-meena-v-delhi-police-2021-385969\|Vikram Singh Meena v. Delhi Police — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-police-public-relation-2021\|Police public-relation / RTI-application data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-police-beat-records-2023\|Police beat / patrol records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59185493/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.)}}
	+
	+	====== Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-12-06 · CIC File No. IK/8509091
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-12-06 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/8509091 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Hari Krishan Fulwaria \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Own assessment records are §2(f); third-party details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harshvardhan-ratnakar-nan-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-988386\|Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8509091/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,punjab,&,haryana,high)&metatag-description=(Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-21 · CIC File No. IK/147421459
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-21 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/147421459 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Harkirat Singh Ghuman \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Punjab & Haryana High Court \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	punjab, &, haryana, high
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-durgesh-kuwar-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2022-219967\|Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-chayan-ghosh-chowdhury-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2021-135674\|Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-johnson-kurian-v-high-court-of-other-states-2021-158551\|Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147421459/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.)}}
	+
	+	====== Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-12-09 · CIC File No. IK/98838620
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-12-09 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/98838620 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Own assessment records are §2(f); third-party details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-hari-krishan-fulwaria-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-850909\|Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98838620/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Himanshu Gupta v. Insurance Regulatory And Development ... — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Himanshu Gupta v. Insurance Regulatory And Development ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,insurance,regulatory,and,development)&metatag-description=(Dealt with an RTI to IRDAI on regulated-entity records. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Himanshu Gupta v. Insurance Regulatory And Development ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-05-25 · CIC File No. IK/50800169
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Dealt with an RTI to IRDAI on regulated-entity records. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Dealt with an RTI to IRDAI on regulated-entity records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-05-25 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/50800169 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Himanshu Gupta \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Insurance Regulatory And Development ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Dealt with an RTI to IRDAI on regulated-entity records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	IRDAI is §2(h); inspection reports follow //Jayantilal Mistry//; policyholder data fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	insurance, regulatory, and, development
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shishir-gupta-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-119702\|Shishir Gupta v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-r-prabakaran-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-173415\|R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-dinesh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-179570\|S Dinesh v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-k-maheshwari-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-324420\|S K Maheshwari v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50800169/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,RTI §19,supreme,court,of,india)&metatag-description=(Commission decided to club and adjudicate appeals. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-09-15 · CIC File No. IK/176092674
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided to club and adjudicate appeals. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-09-15 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/176092674 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Inder Singh \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Supreme Court Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3), §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided to club and adjudicate appeals
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	supreme, court, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-b-d-singh-v-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-s-2021-151797\|B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-johnson-kurian-v-high-court-of-other-states-2021-158551\|Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176092674/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8 section-19}}

Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,Indian Olympic Association,public authority,substantial financing,§2(h))&metatag-description=(IOA held a 'public authority' under §2[h] due to substantial state support. Substantial financing includes concessional benefits (land, rates); IOA brought under.)}}
	+
	+	====== Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2013-04-11 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	IOA held a 'public authority' under §2[h] due to substantial state support. Substantial financing includes concessional benefits (land, rates); IOA brought under.
	+
	+	//Substantial financing includes concessional benefits (land, rates); IOA brought under §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-04-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Indian Olympic Association \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Harinder Dhingra \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	IOA held a 'public authority' under §2(h) due to substantial state support.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	'Substantial financing' extends to indirect State benefits such as concessional land allotments, tax exemptions and equipment grants — not only direct cash grants.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Indian Olympic Association, public authority, substantial financing, §2(h)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 landmark}}

Isha Gunjan Shah v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Isha Gunjan Shah v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.)}}
	+
	+	====== Isha Gunjan Shah v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-09-09 · CIC File No. IK/4858044
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.
	+
	+	//Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-09-09 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/4858044 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Isha Gunjan Shah \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An assessee's own assessment records are §2(f) and accessible; third-party assessment details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4858044/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,high,court,of,other)&metatag-description=(Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with.)}}
	+
	+	====== Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-12-29 · CIC File No. IK/158551825
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Johnson Kurian v. High Court Of Other States — CIC 2021. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-12-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/158551825 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Johnson Kurian \|
	+	^ Respondent \| High Court Of Other States \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	high, court, of, other
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harkirat-singh-ghuman-v-punjab-amp-haryana-high-court-2022-147421\|Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158551825/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,judicial academy,§2(h),CIC,training)&metatag-description=(National and State Judicial Academies are 'public authorities' under §2[h]; training curricula and expense accounts disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Judicial academies are §2(h) public authorities; curricula, faculty lists, and accounts disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| National/State Judicial Academy \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	National and State Judicial Academies are 'public authorities' under §2(h); training curricula and expense accounts disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National and State Judicial Academies, established by the judiciary with State funding, are 'public authorities' under §2(h). Training curricula, faculty lists, research output, and annual accounts are disclosable subject to normal §8 carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judicial academy, §2(h), CIC, training
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/khanapuram-gandaiah-2010-sc\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/namit-sharma-v-uoi-2012-sc\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-judicial-delay-information-2023\|Judicial-delay records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,bharat,heavy,electricals,limited)&metatag-description=(K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026.)}}
	+
	+	====== K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-03-31 · CIC File No. IK/66190988
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	K Balu v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... — CIC 2022. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-03-31 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/66190988 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| K Balu \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission allowed the appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	bharat, heavy, electricals, limited
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-g-l-n-prasad-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-123119\|G L N Prasad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-185668\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-140531\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-railway-tender-commercial-2022\|Railway tender awards — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66190988/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

K Nagaraj v. Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(K Nagaraj v. Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §19,ministry,of,home,affairs)&metatag-description=(Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== K Nagaraj v. Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-20 · CIC File No. IK/73233319
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-20 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/73233319 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| K Nagaraj \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry Of Home Affairs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ministry, of, home, affairs
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shri-v-konda-naik-vs-ministry-of-home-2023-158365\|Shri v. Konda Naik vs Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shish-pal-v-ministry-of-cooperation-2023-865681\|Shish Pal v. Ministry Of Cooperation — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-akhilesh-godi-v-department-of-legal-affairs-2023-185146\|Akhilesh Godi v. Department Of Legal Affairs — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73233319/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-19}}

Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.)}}
	+
	+	====== Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-29 · CIC File No. IK/9310044
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.
	+
	+	//Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/9310044 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Kamal Aggarwal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An assessee's own assessment records are §2(f) and accessible; third-party assessment details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-amrita-chatterjee-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-122742\|Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9310044/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,union,bank,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-07-28 · CIC File No. IK/15531702
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-07-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/15531702 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Kamini Jaiswal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union Bank Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	union, bank, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-sardana-v-canara-bank-2021-140818\|Samir Sardana v. Canara Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-b-d-singh-v-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-s-2021-151797\|B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15531702/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Kuldeep Parashar v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Kuldeep Parashar v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §6,RTI §7,employees,provident,fund,organisation)&metatag-description=(Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by EPFO. Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by.)}}
	+
	+	====== Kuldeep Parashar v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-25 · CIC File No. IK/150502483
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by EPFO. Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by.
	+
	+	//Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by EPFO.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-25 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/150502483 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Kuldeep Parashar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Employees Provident Fund Organisation \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Dealt with a member's RTI for their own provident-fund account history held by EPFO.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A PF member's own account statements, withdrawal applications and processing notings are §2(f) information accessible to the member.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	employees, provident, fund, organisation
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-asis-narayan-biswas-v-employees-provident-fund-organ-2023-102026\|Asis Narayan Biswas v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-records-2021\|EPFO account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-defaulters-2022\|EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150502483/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-6 section-7}}

Lal Chand Meena v. National Highways Authority Of India ... — CIC 2022

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Lal Chand Meena v. National Highways Authority Of India ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,national,highways,authority,of)&metatag-description=(Lal Chand Meena v. National Highways Authority Of India ... — CIC 2022 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Lal Chand Meena v. National Highways Authority Of India ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-18 · CIC File No. IK/72574672
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Lal Chand Meena v. National Highways Authority Of India ... — CIC 2022. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-18 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/72574672 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Lal Chand Meena \|
	+	^ Respondent \| National Highways Authority Of India ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission allowed the appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	national, highways, authority, of
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ap-rti-land-acquisition-2022\|Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC]] (SIC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-b-d-singh-v-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-s-2021-151797\|B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-dr-santosh-narayan-mehrot-v-national-medical-commission-nm-2022-165500\|Dr. Santosh Narayan Mehrotra v. National Medical Commission (Nmc) — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-anne-matilda-b-v-department-of-space-2022-166633\|Anne Matilda B v. Department Of Space — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-uttarakhand-rti-disaster-relief-2023\|Disaster relief records — Uttarakhand SIC]] (SIC-UK 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72574672/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-10-11 · CIC File No. IK/69461539
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-10-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/69461539 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| M Suresh \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-amrita-chatterjee-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-122742\|Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69461539/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Mahesh Kumar Goyal v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mahesh Kumar Goyal v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,reserve,bank,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mahesh Kumar Goyal v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-04-05 · CIC File No. IK/12571814
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.
	+
	+	//Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-04-05 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/12571814 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Mahesh Kumar Goyal \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Reserve Bank Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Regulator-regulated inspection records follow //Jayantilal Mistry// — disclosable; individual customer data remains fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	reserve, bank, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-r-prabakaran-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-173415\|R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-dinesh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-179570\|S Dinesh v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-k-maheshwari-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-324420\|S K Maheshwari v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shishir-gupta-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-119702\|Shishir Gupta v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-padmini-vora-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-181053\|Padmini Vora v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12571814/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-10 · CIC File No. IK/117632159
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-10 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/117632159 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Manoj Kumar Jain \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117632159/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-07-08 · CIC File No. IK/49472887
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-07-08 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/49472887 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Manoj Saini \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission allowed the appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-kumar-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2023-117632\|Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ravinder-kaur-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-573570\|Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49472887/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,foreign travel,ministers,CIC,public expenditure)&metatag-description=(Minister's / senior officer's official foreign-travel records [destination, purpose, expenditure] disclosable as public-money records.)}}
	+
	+	====== Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Ministers' / senior officials' foreign-travel details (purpose, cost, dates) are public-money records — disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry / PMO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Minister's / senior officer's official foreign-travel records (destination, purpose, expenditure) disclosable as public-money records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Ministers' and senior officers' foreign-travel details on official business — destination, dates, delegation composition, expenditure — are records of public monies and disclosable. Personal-travel details remain protected under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	foreign travel, ministers, CIC, public expenditure
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pmo-records-2019\|PMO records scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lok-sabha-mp-salary-2020\|MP salary + allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-csr-records-2021\|CSR expenditure records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

N. K. Handa v. Ifci Limited (Ifci) — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(N. K. Handa v. Ifci Limited (Ifci) — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,ifci,limited,(ifci))&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== N. K. Handa v. Ifci Limited (Ifci) — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-02-11 · CIC File No. IK/147984944
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-02-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/147984944 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| N. K. Handa \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ifci Limited (Ifci) \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ifci, limited, (ifci)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147984944/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Narendra Singh Bisht v. Punjab National Bank — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Narendra Singh Bisht v. Punjab National Bank — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,punjab,national,bank)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower / employee / branch record. //Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower /.)}}
	+
	+	====== Narendra Singh Bisht v. Punjab National Bank — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-06-23 · CIC File No. IK/14111938
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower / employee / branch record. //Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower /.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower / employee / branch record.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-06-23 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/14111938 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Narendra Singh Bisht \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Punjab National Bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to Punjab National Bank touching a borrower / employee / branch record.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	PSU bank is §2(h); borrower file remains fiduciary under §8(1)(e) except on §8(2) public interest; employee own-record accessible.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	punjab, national, bank
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-durgesh-kuwar-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2022-219967\|Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-chayan-ghosh-chowdhury-v-punjab-amp-sind-bank-2021-135674\|Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harkirat-singh-ghuman-v-punjab-amp-haryana-high-court-2022-147421\|Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shashank-raj-icici-bank-l-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-959003\|Shashank Raj (Icici Bank Limited) v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14111938/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,state,bank,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-06-28 · CIC File No. IK/123611123
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-06-28 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/123611123 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Naresh Panwar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Bank Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	state, bank, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-sardana-v-canara-bank-2021-140818\|Samir Sardana v. Canara Bank — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-b-d-singh-v-steel-authority-of-india-ltd-s-2021-151797\|B. D. Singh v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123611123/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Naresh Sharma v. Tata Institute Of Fundamental Research — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Naresh Sharma v. Tata Institute Of Fundamental Research — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,tata,institute,of,fundamental)&metatag-description=(Appeal partly allowed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Naresh Sharma v. Tata Institute Of Fundamental Research — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-29 · CIC File No. IK/48546327
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information about TIFR Council meetings sought//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/48546327 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Naresh Sharma \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Tata Institute Of Fundamental Research \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by the Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information about TIFR Council meetings sought
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	tata, institute, of, fundamental
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/48546327/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Neeraj Kedia v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Neeraj Kedia v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,hindustan,petroleum,corporation,...)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI to a petroleum PSU. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Neeraj Kedia v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-06-30 · CIC File No. IK/38937103
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to a petroleum PSU. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI to a petroleum PSU.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-06-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/38937103 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Neeraj Kedia \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to a petroleum PSU.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Post-award licensing disclosable; proprietary tech / trade secrets §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	hindustan, petroleum, corporation, ...
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-g-l-n-prasad-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-123119\|G L N Prasad v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-185668\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-saurabh-agrawal-v-bharat-petroleum-corporation-l-2023-140531\|Saurabh Agrawal v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-digital-india-2024\|Digital India Corporation tenders — CIC 2024]] (CIC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38937103/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

Om Prakash Kashiram v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Om Prakash Kashiram v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,central,board,of,indirect)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Om Prakash Kashiram v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-12-15 · CIC File No. IK/128735275
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-12-15 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/128735275 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Om Prakash Kashiram \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	central, board, of, indirect
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128735275/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.)}}
	+
	+	====== P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-29 · CIC File No. IK/165008044
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-29 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/165008044 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| P. K. Jain \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Own assessment records are §2(f); third-party details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-kumar-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2023-117632\|Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-hari-krishan-fulwaria-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-850909\|Hari Krishan Fulwaria v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-harshvardhan-ratnakar-nan-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-988386\|Harshvardhan Ratnakar Nanoti v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165008044/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Padmini Vora v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Padmini Vora v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,reserve,bank,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.)}}
	+
	+	====== Padmini Vora v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-05-30 · CIC File No. IK/181053863
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.
	+
	+	//Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-05-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/181053863 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Padmini Vora \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Reserve Bank Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Regulator-regulated inspection records follow //Jayantilal Mistry// — disclosable; individual customer data remains fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	reserve, bank, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-r-prabakaran-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-173415\|R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-dinesh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-179570\|S Dinesh v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-k-maheshwari-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-324420\|S K Maheshwari v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shishir-gupta-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-119702\|Shishir Gupta v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-mahesh-kumar-goyal-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-125718\|Mahesh Kumar Goyal v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181053863/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Piyush Avinash Luktuke v. Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ...

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Piyush Avinash Luktuke v. Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,institute,of,companies,secretaries)&metatag-description=(Dealt with an RTI to the Institute of Company Secretaries of India on examination or professional records. Dealt with an RTI to the Institute of Company.)}}
	+
	+	====== Piyush Avinash Luktuke v. Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-05-09 · CIC File No. IK/5110875
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Dealt with an RTI to the Institute of Company Secretaries of India on examination or professional records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-05-09 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/5110875 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Piyush Avinash Luktuke \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Dealt with an RTI to the Institute of Company Secretaries of India on examination or professional records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	ICSI is §2(h); own examination marks are accessible per //Aditya Bandopadhyay//; third-party marks are §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	institute, of, companies, secretaries
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-sharma-v-tata-institute-of-fundamental-2021-485463\|Naresh Sharma v. Tata Institute Of Fundamental Research — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-upsc-interview-2024\|UPSC interview evaluation — Delhi HC 2024]] (HC-DEL 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5110875/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,political parties,public authority,§2(h),CIC Full Bench)&metatag-description=(CIC held six national political parties to be 'public authorities' under §2[h]. Parties have not complied. Six national political parties ruled public authorities.)}}
	+
	+	====== Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2013-06-03 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	CIC held six national political parties to be 'public authorities' under §2[h]. Parties have not complied. Six national political parties ruled public authorities.
	+
	+	//Six national political parties ruled public authorities under §2(h); compliance remains unresolved.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-06-03 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal et al. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| 6 National Political Parties \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC held six national political parties to be 'public authorities' under §2(h). Parties have not complied.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Political parties receive substantial indirect financing (tax exemptions, concessional land, free air-time). They are public authorities under §2(h) and answerable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	political parties, public authority, §2(h), CIC Full Bench
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sports-body-2018\|National sports federations — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 landmark}}

Praveen Kumar v. Office Of The Additional Distt. ... — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Praveen Kumar v. Office Of The Additional Distt. ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,office,of,the,additional)&metatag-description=(Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Praveen Kumar v. Office Of The Additional Distt. ... — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-04-26 · CIC File No. IK/139198183
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought by appellant//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-04-26 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/139198183 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Praveen Kumar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Office Of The Additional Distt. ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought by appellant
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	office, of, the, additional
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139198183/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,reserve,bank,of,india)&metatag-description=(Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.)}}
	+
	+	====== R. Prabakaran v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-03-07 · CIC File No. IK/173415011
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8[1][e] fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI. Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for.
	+
	+	//Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-03-07 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/173415011 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| R. Prabakaran \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Reserve Bank Of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the scope of §8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption for banking-regulatory records held by RBI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Regulator-regulated inspection records follow //Jayantilal Mistry// — disclosable; individual customer data remains fiduciary.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	reserve, bank, of, india
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-dinesh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-179570\|S Dinesh v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-s-k-maheshwari-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2023-324420\|S K Maheshwari v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shishir-gupta-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-119702\|Shishir Gupta v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-padmini-vora-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-181053\|Padmini Vora v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-mahesh-kumar-goyal-v-reserve-bank-of-india-2022-125718\|Mahesh Kumar Goyal v. Reserve Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173415011/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Raja Muzaffar Bhat v. Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir — CIC 2021

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Raja Muzaffar Bhat v. Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,ut,of,jammu,and)&metatag-description=(Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Raja Muzaffar Bhat v. Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir — CIC 2021 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-07-16 · CIC File No. IK/6697537
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought under RTI Act//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-07-16 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/6697537 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Raja Muzaffar Bhat \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission decided in favour of appellant
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought under RTI Act
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ut, of, jammu, and
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6697537/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Rajeev Shrivastava v. Directorate General Defence Estates ...

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rajeev Shrivastava v. Directorate General Defence Estates ... — CIC 2021,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,directorate,general,defence,estates)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI to the Ministry of Defence. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rajeev Shrivastava v. Directorate General Defence Estates ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-12-22 · CIC File No. IK/144795782
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Ministry of Defence. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI to the Ministry of Defence.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-12-22 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/144795782 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rajeev Shrivastava \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Directorate General Defence Estates ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI to the Ministry of Defence.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Strategic defence records attract §8(1)(a); procurement records post-award disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	directorate, general, defence, estates
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-thomas-mathew-v-department-of-defence-2023-726952\|Thomas Mathew v. Department Of Defence — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-defence-pensions-ceremonial-2020\|Defence pension sanction records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-yotsna-dhurandher-v-directorate-of-education-2022-842514\|Yotsna Dhurandher v. Directorate Of Education — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-shri-v-konda-naik-vs-ministry-of-home-2023-158365\|Shri v. Konda Naik vs Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-k-nagaraj-v-ministry-of-home-affairs-2021-732333\|K Nagaraj v. Ministry Of Home Affairs — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144795782/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-24}}

Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,cbi)&metatag-description=(Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rajendra Singh Parihar v. Cbi — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-02-02 · CIC File No. IK/9140685
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information denied under Section 8(1)(j)//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-02-02 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/9140685 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rajendra Singh Parihar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Cbi \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal dismissed by the Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information denied under Section 8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cbi
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-sharat-kohli-v-cbi-2021-320540\|Sharat Kohli v. Cbi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cbi-investigation-closure-2020\|CBI closure reports — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-section-24-proviso-2018\|§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ed-search-seizure-2024\|ED search-and-seizure records — Supreme Court 2024]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9140685/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Rajesh Gill v. Vice-President Secratariat — CIC 2022

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rajesh Gill v. Vice-President Secratariat — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,RTI §8,vice-president,secratariat)&metatag-description=(Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rajesh Gill v. Vice-President Secratariat — CIC 2022 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-03-31 · CIC File No. IK/102859215
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-03-31 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/102859215 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rajesh Gill \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Vice-President Secratariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered an RTI application and the public authority response.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commission disposed of the appeal with directions on §10 severance and §7(1) timeline compliance.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	vice-president, secratariat
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gangaram-v-university-of-delhi-2021-155347\|Gangaram v. University Of Delhi — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-naresh-panwar-v-state-bank-of-india-2021-123611\|Naresh Panwar v. State Bank Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-samir-mathur-v-ut-of-chandigarh-2021-312227\|Samir Mathur v. Ut Of Chandigarh — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inder-singh-v-supreme-court-of-india-2021-176092\|Inder Singh v. Supreme Court Of India — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamini-jaiswal-v-union-bank-of-india-2022-155317\|Kamini Jaiswal v. Union Bank Of India — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102859215/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7 section-8}}

Rajinder Kumar v. Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rajinder Kumar v. Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,director,general,of,income)&metatag-description=(Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rajinder Kumar v. Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-11-02 · CIC File No. IK/154642436
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department. Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held.
	+
	+	//Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-11-02 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/154642436 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rajinder Kumar \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Considered the applicant's RTI for assessment-related records held by the Income-tax Department.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An assessee's own assessment records are §2(f) and accessible; third-party assessment details attract §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	director, general, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-kumar-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2023-117632\|Manoj Kumar Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154642436/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,customs)&metatag-description=(Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-05-25 · CIC File No. IK/65978867
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-05-25 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/65978867 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rananjay Pratap Singh \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, customs,
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rananjay-pratap-singh-v-chief-commissioner-of-customs-2023-992691\|Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cbic-customs-duty-2020\|CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-mohit-agrawal-v-chief-commissioner-of-gst-ahme-2023-814348\|Mohit Agrawal v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vinod-kumar-yadav-v-chief-commissioner-of-gst-chan-2021-196952\|Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chandigarh ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65978867/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs ... — CIC 2023,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,customs)&metatag-description=(Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-05-31 · CIC File No. IK/9926912
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-05-31 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/9926912 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rananjay Pratap Singh \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Appeal partly allowed by Commission
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, customs,
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rananjay-pratap-singh-v-chief-commissioner-of-customs-2023-659788\|Rananjay Pratap Singh v. Chief Commissioner Of Customs, ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cbic-customs-duty-2020\|CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-mohit-agrawal-v-chief-commissioner-of-gst-ahme-2023-814348\|Mohit Agrawal v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Ahmedabad ... — CIC 2023]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vinod-kumar-yadav-v-chief-commissioner-of-gst-chan-2021-196952\|Vinod Kumar Yadav v. Chief Commissioner Of Gst, Chandigarh ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-p-k-jain-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-165008\|P. K. Jain v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9926912/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ...

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) ... — CIC 2022,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,chief,commissioner,of,income)&metatag-description=(Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-08-16 · CIC File No. IK/57357036
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Ravinder Kaur v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), .... RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
	+
	+	//Information sought is personal in nature//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-08-16 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC File No. IK/57357036 \|
	+	^ Bench \| C, I, C, , S, i, n, g, l, e, , B, e, n, c, h \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Ravinder Kaur \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Commission dismissed the appeal
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information sought is personal in nature
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	chief, commissioner, of, income
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-m-suresh-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-694615\|M Suresh v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-kamal-aggarwal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-931004\|Kamal Aggarwal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-manoj-saini-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-494728\|Manoj Saini v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ashish-bansal-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2021-101930\|Ashish Bansal v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... — CIC 2021]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-amrita-chatterjee-v-chief-commissioner-of-income-t-2022-122742\|Amrita Chatterjee v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... — CIC 2022]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57357036/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,recruitment,interview panel,§8(1)(g),CIC,scores)&metatag-description=(Interviewer identity protected under §8[1][g]; candidate's own score, rank and general evaluation framework disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Interviewer identity protected under §8[1][g]; candidate's own score, rank and general evaluation framework disclosable.
	+
	+	//Interviewer names are §8(1)(g) protected; candidate's own score + framework disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Recruiting body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interviewer identity protected under §8(1)(g); candidate's own score, rank and general evaluation framework disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following Bihar PSC v. Rizwi (SC 2012), the CIC protects interview-panel member identities under §8(1)(g). The candidate's own interview score, the marking framework, and aggregate marks are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	recruitment, interview panel, §8(1)(g), CIC, scores
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Aadhaar-seeding records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Aadhaar-seeding records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,Aadhaar seeding,CIC,§8(1)(j),welfare)&metatag-description=(Own Aadhaar-seeding status in a welfare scheme is disclosable to the account holder; third-party seeding data protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Aadhaar-seeding records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Own Aadhaar-seeding status in a welfare scheme is disclosable to the account holder; third-party seeding data protected.
	+
	+	//Own Aadhaar-seeding status accessible to data subject; third-party §8(1)(j) + Aadhaar Act absolute.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Welfare-scheme beneficiary \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Scheme-implementing authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Own Aadhaar-seeding status in a welfare scheme is disclosable to the account holder; third-party seeding data protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A welfare-scheme beneficiary is entitled to know his/her own Aadhaar-seeding status in that scheme's database. Third-party seeding data and the Aadhaar number itself remain absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) read with §§28, 33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the DPDP Act, 2023.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Aadhaar seeding, CIC, §8(1)(j), welfare
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-uidai-own-aadhaar-2022\|UIDAI own-Aadhaar access — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-biometric-data-rti-2019\|Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-ap-rti-welfare-pension-2022\|YSR welfare pension records — Andhra Pradesh HC]] (HC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

AAI airport records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(AAI airport records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,AAI,airports,§2(h),§8(1)(a))&metatag-description=(AAI is §2[h]; airport operational data disclosable; security protocols / checkpoint procedures §8[1][a]. AAI = §2(h); airport operational data disclosable;.)}}
	+
	+	====== AAI airport records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	AAI is §2[h]; airport operational data disclosable; security protocols / checkpoint procedures §8[1][a]. AAI = §2(h); airport operational data disclosable;.
	+
	+	//AAI = §2(h); airport operational data disclosable; security protocols §8(1)(a).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Passenger / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Airports Authority of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	AAI is §2(h); airport operational data disclosable; security protocols / checkpoint procedures §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Airports Authority of India is a statutory body under AAI Act 1994 and public authority under §2(h). Traffic data, runway upgrades, tender awards, concession agreements are disclosable. Security protocols, checkpoint procedures, and threat assessments remain §8(1)(a) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	AAI, airports, §2(h), §8(1)(a)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-police-beat-records-2023\|Police beat / patrol records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-isro-public-records-2019\|ISRO non-operational records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,selection committee,recruitment,§8(1)(e),CIC)&metatag-description=(Selection-committee minutes protected during deliberation; final recommendation + successful candidate's score disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Selection-committee minutes protected during deliberation; final recommendation + successful candidate's score disclosable.
	+
	+	//SSC minutes during deliberation are §8(1)(e) protected; final recommendation + outcome disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Unsuccessful candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Recruiting body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e), §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Selection-committee minutes protected during deliberation; final recommendation + successful candidate's score disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Internal deliberations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee are protected under §8(1)(e) during the selection process. Once the selection is final, the recommendation, rank list and the successful candidate's score are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	selection committee, recruitment, §8(1)(e), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-parliamentary-committee-2017\|Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Ayushman Bharat beneficiary access — CIC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ayushman Bharat beneficiary access — CIC 2024,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,Ayushman Bharat,PM-JAY,NHA,section 8(1)(j),own record)&metatag-description=(A beneficiary can access their own PM-JAY treatment authorisation file within 30 days. Own treatment records are §2(f); NHA cannot refuse on §8(1)(j) to the.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ayushman Bharat beneficiary access — CIC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-08-14 · CIC/NHA/A/2024/56789
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	A beneficiary can access their own PM-JAY treatment authorisation file within 30 days. Own treatment records are §2(f); NHA cannot refuse on §8(1)(j) to the.
	+
	+	//Own treatment records are §2(f); NHA cannot refuse on §8(1)(j) to the applicant.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-08-14 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC/NHA/A/2024/56789 \|
	+	^ Bench \| N, e, e, r, a, j, , K, u, m, a, r, , G, u, p, t, a, , I, C \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Patient Rights Network \|
	+	^ Respondent \| NHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A beneficiary can access their own PM-JAY treatment authorisation file within 30 days.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The National Health Authority cannot invoke §8(1)(j) to deny a PM-JAY beneficiary their own treatment authorisation, hospital claim and referral history. Personal-information exemption protects OTHERS' information; the beneficiary's own file is §2(f) self-accessible. Thirty-day §7(1) compliance is mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Ayushman Bharat, PM-JAY, NHA, section 8(1)(j), own record
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-ayushman-bharat-empanelment-2022\|Ayushman Bharat hospital empanelment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pradhan-mantri-schemes-2024\|PM schemes beneficiary & utilisation — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ts-rti-hospital-billing-2021\|Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC]] (SIC-TS 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cat-rti-service-matters-2024\|CAT Principal Bench on service-record RTI — 2024]] (CAT 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-cic-ayushman-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

Ayushman Bharat hospital empanelment — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ayushman Bharat hospital empanelment — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,Ayushman Bharat,PMJAY,NHA,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(NHA empaneled-hospital list + treatment-package rates + claim-denial aggregate = §4[1][b] disclosure. AB-PMJAY empaneled hospitals + package rates + aggregate.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ayushman Bharat hospital empanelment — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	NHA empaneled-hospital list + treatment-package rates + claim-denial aggregate = §4[1][b] disclosure. AB-PMJAY empaneled hospitals + package rates + aggregate.
	+
	+	//AB-PMJAY empaneled hospitals + package rates + aggregate claim data: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Patient \|
	+	^ Respondent \| NHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	NHA empaneled-hospital list + treatment-package rates + claim-denial aggregate = §4(1)(b) disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National Health Authority (NHA), administering PM-JAY (Ayushman Bharat), is a public authority under §2(h). Empanelled hospital list, treatment-package rates (Health Benefit Packages), aggregate state-wise claim-utilisation data are §4(1)(b) material. Individual patient treatment data remains §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Ayushman Bharat, PMJAY, NHA, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ts-rti-hospital-billing-2021\|Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC]] (SIC-TS 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pradhan-mantri-schemes-2024\|PM schemes beneficiary & utilisation — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

PSU company board records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PSU company board records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,BPCL,IOCL,HPCL,PSU,§2(h))&metatag-description=(PSU-listed companies [BPCL, IOCL, HPCL] are §2[h]; annual reports + CSR disclosable; trading strategy §8[1][d]. //PSU-listed cos (BPCL/IOCL/HPCL) = §2(h); annual.)}}
	+
	+	====== PSU company board records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PSU-listed cos (BPCL/IOCL/HPCL) = §2(h); annual reports + CSR disclosable; trading strategy §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| BPCL / IOCL / HPCL \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PSU-listed companies (BPCL, IOCL, HPCL) are §2(h); annual reports + CSR disclosable; trading strategy §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Public sector undertakings including BPCL, IOCL, HPCL — even when listed on stock exchanges — remain public authorities under §2(h) by virtue of majority government shareholding. Annual reports, CSR expenditure, tender awards, and policy decisions are disclosable. Market-sensitive trading strategy and hedging positions are §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BPCL, IOCL, HPCL, PSU, §2(h)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-csr-records-2021\|CSR expenditure records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-25-annual-report-cic-2019\|§25 annual report — disclosure obligation]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

BSNL subscriber records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:05 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(BSNL subscriber records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,BSNL,telecom,§2(h),own records)&metatag-description=(BSNL is §2[h]; subscriber's own KYC, bill, and service-records fully accessible. BSNL = §2(h); own subscriber records fully accessible; §8(1)(j) doesn't apply to.)}}
	+
	+	====== BSNL subscriber records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	BSNL is §2[h]; subscriber's own KYC, bill, and service-records fully accessible. BSNL = §2(h); own subscriber records fully accessible; §8(1)(j) doesn't apply to.
	+
	+	//BSNL = §2(h); own subscriber records fully accessible; §8(1)(j) doesn't apply to data subject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Subscriber \|
	+	^ Respondent \| BSNL \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	BSNL is §2(h); subscriber's own KYC, bill, and service-records fully accessible.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	BSNL is a 100% government-owned PSU and public authority under §2(h). A subscriber's own KYC records, billing history, service-request correspondence, and complaint-disposition are fully accessible. Third-party subscriber data remains §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BSNL, telecom, §2(h), own records
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022\|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-service-book-personal-2021\|Service book disclosure to public servant — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

CAG audit reports — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CAG audit reports — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,CAG,audit,§4(1)(b),§8(1)(c))&metatag-description=(CAG reports once tabled in legislature are public documents; pre-tabling draft reports protected under §8[1][c]. CAG reports tabled in legislature = public.)}}
	+
	+	====== CAG audit reports — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	CAG reports once tabled in legislature are public documents; pre-tabling draft reports protected under §8[1][c]. CAG reports tabled in legislature = public.
	+
	+	//CAG reports tabled in legislature = public documents; pre-tabling drafts protected under §8(1)(c).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Auditee authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CAG reports once tabled in legislature are public documents; pre-tabling draft reports protected under §8(1)(c).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Comptroller and Auditor General reports, once tabled in Parliament or State Legislature, are public documents and §4(1)(b) material. Pre-tabling draft reports and audit-memos are protected under §8(1)(c) (parliamentary privilege) until tabling.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CAG, audit, §4(1)(b), §8(1)(c)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-parliament-secretariat-2019\|Parliament Secretariat RTI scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-parliamentary-committee-2017\|Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-25-annual-report-cic-2019\|§25 annual report — disclosure obligation]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-sfi-mgnregs-audit-2023\|MGNREGS social audit — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

CBI closure reports — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CBI closure reports — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,CBI,§24 proviso,corruption,closure report)&metatag-description=(CBI §24 exempt; closure reports [where corruption/human-rights invoked via proviso] disclosable with CIC approval. //CBI §24 exempt, but §24 proviso opens.)}}
	+
	+	====== CBI closure reports — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CBI §24 exempt, but §24 proviso opens corruption/human-rights investigation closure reports via CIC approval.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Complainant / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CBI §24 exempt; closure reports (where corruption/human-rights invoked via proviso) disclosable with CIC approval.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	CBI is a §24-notified exempt organisation. The §24 proviso — allegations of corruption and human-rights violations — opens a narrow disclosure path. Closure reports in such matters are disclosable with CIC's case-by-case approval; operational details remain protected under §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CBI, §24 proviso, corruption, closure report
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-section-24-proviso-2018\|§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-police-public-relation-2021\|Police public-relation / RTI-application data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-mass-surveillance-transparency-2022\|Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-24}}

CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,CBIC,customs,HS code,§4(1)(b)(v))&metatag-description=(CBIC classification circulars, HS-code rulings, and advance-rulings are §4[1][b][v] material. CBIC circulars, HS classification + advance rulings: §4(1)(b)(v).)}}
	+
	+	====== CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CBIC circulars, HS classification + advance rulings: §4(1)(b)(v) proactive disclosure (rules & instructions).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Trade association / importer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(v) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CBIC classification circulars, HS-code rulings, and advance-rulings are §4(1)(b)(v) material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) circulars, tariff classification rulings, Harmonised System code determinations, and published advance-rulings are records of how the public authority discharges its functions. §4(1)(b)(v) requires proactive portal publication.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CBIC, customs, HS code, §4(1)(b)(v)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cvc-vigilance-circulars-2020\|CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-4-portal-compliance-2020\|§4 portal-publication compliance — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-karnataka-rti-kerc-electricity-2021\|KERC tariff determination records — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jharkhand-rti-ration-scheme-2021\|PDS scheme records — Jharkhand HC]] (HC-JH 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Census raw data — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:04 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Census raw data — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,Census,aggregate data,Census Act,§15,CIC)&metatag-description=(Census aggregate tables § 4[1][b] disclosable; individual household record [Census Slip] absolutely confidential under Census Act §15.)}}
	+
	+	====== Census raw data — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Census aggregate tables = §4 disclosable; individual Census Slip = Census Act §15 absolute confidentiality.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Office of the Registrar General / Census Commissioner \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Census aggregate tables § 4(1)(b) disclosable; individual household record (Census Slip) absolutely confidential under Census Act §15.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Census tables and aggregate data at every geographical level are public records under §4(1)(b). Individual Census Slip data (household-level enumeration records) is absolutely protected under §15 of the Census Act, 1948 — a statutory bar that coexists with and supplements the RTI Act's exemptions.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Census, aggregate data, Census Act, §15, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-assam-rti-citizens-register-2022\|NRC aggregate statistics — Gauhati HC]] (HC-GAU 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-biometric-data-rti-2019\|Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rbi-moratorium-2021\|RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Coal India mining records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Coal India mining records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,Coal India,CCL,mining,§2(h))&metatag-description=(Coal India and subsidiaries are §2[h]; mining-lease records, environmental compliance, R&R records disclosable. Coal India = §2(h); mining lease + EIA compliance +.)}}
	+
	+	====== Coal India mining records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Coal India and subsidiaries are §2[h]; mining-lease records, environmental compliance, R&R records disclosable. Coal India = §2(h); mining lease + EIA compliance +.
	+
	+	//Coal India = §2(h); mining lease + EIA compliance + R&R records disclosable under §4(1)(b).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Affected resident \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Coal India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Coal India and subsidiaries are §2(h); mining-lease records, environmental compliance, R&R records disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries (CCL, SECL, MCL, NCL, WCL, ECL, BCCL) are public authorities under §2(h). Mining-lease area records, environmental-clearance compliance, and Rehabilitation & Resettlement records are §4(1)(b) material with high public-interest value.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Coal India, CCL, mining, §2(h)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-jharkhand-rti-mining-2022\|Mining district-fund records — Jharkhand SIC]] (SIC-JH 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-environmental-clearance-granted-2020\|Environmental clearance grant records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-chhattisgarh-rti-mining-2021\|Mineral concession records — Chhattisgarh HC]] (HC-CG 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §11,PSU,commercial confidence,§8(1)(d),CIC,tender)&metatag-description=(PSU's commercial terms with private vendors protected under §8[1][d]; summary award details disclosable. PSU commercial-terms details are §8(1)(d) protected;.)}}
	+
	+	====== PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	PSU's commercial terms with private vendors protected under §8[1][d]; summary award details disclosable. PSU commercial-terms details are §8(1)(d) protected;.
	+
	+	//PSU commercial-terms details are §8(1)(d) protected; summary tender-award data disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Competitor / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public-sector undertaking \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PSU's commercial terms with private vendors protected under §8(1)(d); summary award details disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commercial terms in a PSU's contracts with private vendors — pricing schedules, royalty rates, IP licences — are protected under §8(1)(d). Tender-award summary data (winner, amount, delivery timeline) is typically disclosable, subject to §11 third-party notice.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PSU, commercial confidence, §8(1)(d), CIC, tender
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-bmtc-tenders-2020\|BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-railway-tender-commercial-2022\|Railway tender awards — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sovereign-wealth-fund-2022\|NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-bharat-petroleum-2020\|PSU company board records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-11}}

CSR expenditure records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:05 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CSR expenditure records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,CSR,PSU,CIC,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(PSU CSR expenditure records — project-wise allocation, beneficiary NGOs, outcomes — are §4 proactive disclosure. PSU CSR project-wise expenditure + NGO partners =.)}}
	+
	+	====== CSR expenditure records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	PSU CSR expenditure records — project-wise allocation, beneficiary NGOs, outcomes — are §4 proactive disclosure. PSU CSR project-wise expenditure + NGO partners =.
	+
	+	//PSU CSR project-wise expenditure + NGO partners = §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public Sector Undertaking \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PSU CSR expenditure records — project-wise allocation, beneficiary NGOs, outcomes — are §4 proactive disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure by Public Sector Undertakings under §135 of the Companies Act, 2013 is expenditure of public money. Project-wise allocation, implementing NGO names, beneficiary numbers and outcome reports are §4(1)(b) material.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CSR, PSU, CIC, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-bharat-petroleum-2020\|PSU company board records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-uttarakhand-rti-chardham-2020\|Char Dham project records — Uttarakhand HC]] (HC-UK 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pradhan-mantri-schemes-2024\|PM schemes beneficiary & utilisation — CIC]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-smart-city-project-2021\|Smart-city project details — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,CVC,vigilance circulars,§4(1)(b)(v),CIC)&metatag-description=(CVC circulars, vigilance guidelines, and disciplinary policy documents are public records disclosable under §4. //CVC / vigilance POLICY circulars are §4 public.)}}
	+
	+	====== CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CVC / vigilance POLICY circulars are §4 public records; individual case files remain §8(1)(h) protected during pendency.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CVC / vigilance unit \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CVC circulars, vigilance guidelines, and disciplinary policy documents are public records disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	CVC circulars, vigilance manual updates, and disciplinary-policy guidelines govern the public authority's own functioning and are disclosable under §4(1)(b)(v) (rules, regulations, instructions). Individual vigilance case files remain protected under §8(1)(h) during pendency and §8(1)(j) thereafter.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CVC, vigilance circulars, §4(1)(b)(v), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-service-book-personal-2021\|Service book disclosure to public servant — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cbic-customs-duty-2020\|CBIC customs-duty classification — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,cyber incident,CIC,§8(1)(a),§8(1)(h),CERT-In)&metatag-description=(Cyber-incident details against a public authority: executive summary disclosable post-remediation; live-investigation material protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Cyber-incident reports: executive summary post-remediation OK; live forensic content §8(1)(h) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority (victim) \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cyber-incident details against a public authority: executive summary disclosable post-remediation; live-investigation material protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a public authority suffers a cyber-incident, the existence, date, nature (ransomware/data-exfiltration), and remediation status are disclosable post-remediation as accountability records. Live forensic content and specific IOCs remain protected under §8(1)(a) / §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cyber incident, CIC, §8(1)(a), §8(1)(h), CERT-In
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-dgca-aircraft-investigation-2023\|DGCA aircraft-incident investigation — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-lok-pal-public-authority-2024\|Lok Pal under RTI — SC]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-bmtc-tenders-2020\|BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Defence pension sanction records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Defence pension sanction records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,RTI §24,defence pension,PCDA,§24,own records)&metatag-description=(Retired defence personnel's own pension file fully disclosable; §24 armed-forces exemption not applicable to personal pension records.)}}
	+
	+	====== Defence pension sanction records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Retired defence personnel's own pension file fully disclosable; §24 armed-forces exemption not applicable to personal pension records.
	+
	+	//Own defence-pension file fully accessible; §24 exemption doesn't apply to personal pension records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Retired defence personnel \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Defence Accounts / PCDA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Retired defence personnel's own pension file fully disclosable; §24 armed-forces exemption not applicable to personal pension records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The §24 exemption applies to operational/intelligence records of defence forces, not to an individual retired personnel's own pension-sanction file. Records of pension computation, arrears, commutation, disability-pension assessments remain accessible to the pensioner under RTI via PCDA.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	defence pension, PCDA, §24, own records
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-pension-delay-2022\|Pension sanction delay — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018\|IB and §24 scope — SC]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8 section-24}}

DGCA aircraft-incident investigation — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DGCA aircraft-incident investigation — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,DGCA,AAIB,aviation safety,§8(1)(h))&metatag-description=(AAIB final incident reports disclosable post-investigation; flight-data recorder data subject to aviation-safety protocol.)}}
	+
	+	====== DGCA aircraft-incident investigation — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//AAIB final reports disclosable post-investigation; cockpit voice recorder raw data protected by aviation-safety rules.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Passenger / researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| DGCA / AAIB \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	AAIB final incident reports disclosable post-investigation; flight-data recorder data subject to aviation-safety protocol.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) under DGCA conducts investigations into aviation incidents. Final published reports are §4(1)(b) material disclosable. Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder raw data are subject to ICAO Annex 13 and Indian Aircraft (Investigation of Accidents) Rules — tightly restricted even post-investigation.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	DGCA, AAIB, aviation safety, §8(1)(h)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cyber-attacks-public-authority-2023\|Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-cooperative-bank-fraud-2022\|Cooperative bank fraud investigation — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Digital India Corporation tenders — CIC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Digital India Corporation tenders — CIC 2024,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,Digital India,DIC,section 2(h),section 8(1)(d),tender)&metatag-description=(DIC is §2[h]; post-award tender files disclosable with commercial-confidence redactions. MeitY-funded Section 8 companies are §2(h).)}}
	+
	+	====== Digital India Corporation tenders — CIC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-09-10 · CIC/MEITY/A/2024/67890
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	DIC is §2[h]; post-award tender files disclosable with commercial-confidence redactions. MeitY-funded Section 8 companies are §2(h).
	+
	+	//MeitY-funded Section 8 companies are §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-09-10 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC/MEITY/A/2024/67890 \|
	+	^ Bench \| V, i, n, o, d, , K, u, m, a, r, , T, i, w, a, r, i, , I, C \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Tech Transparency Forum \|
	+	^ Respondent \| DIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	DIC is §2(h); post-award tender files disclosable with commercial-confidence redactions.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Digital India Corporation is fully funded by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. Post-award tender documents for NIC, UMANG and DigiLocker contracts are disclosable. Price discovery and L1-L2 analysis are transparent; vendor IP and trade secrets remain §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Digital India, DIC, section 2(h), section 8(1)(d), tender
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-bmtc-tenders-2020\|BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-railway-tender-commercial-2022\|Railway tender awards — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-kerala-rti-beverage-corporation-2022\|Kerala Beverage Corp records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-cic-dic-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

NPCI records scope — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(NPCI records scope — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,NPCI,UPI,Rupay,§2(h))&metatag-description=(NPCI is §2[h] public authority; aggregate UPI/Rupay statistics disclosable; settlement-layer technical details §8[1][d].)}}
	+
	+	====== NPCI records scope — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//NPCI = §2(h); aggregate UPI/Rupay stats disclosable; settlement-layer technical details §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| NPCI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	NPCI is §2(h) public authority; aggregate UPI/Rupay statistics disclosable; settlement-layer technical details §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), jointly owned by PSU and private banks under RBI oversight, is a public authority under §2(h). Aggregate UPI/Rupay transaction volumes, participant bank lists, and policy circulars are disclosable. Settlement-layer technical details and commercial pricing are §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NPCI, UPI, Rupay, §2(h)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-assam-rti-citizens-register-2022\|NRC aggregate statistics — Gauhati HC]] (HC-GAU 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-police-beat-records-2023\|Police beat / patrol records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-gail-pipeline-2022\|GAIL pipeline records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,diplomatic,MEA,§8(1)(a),sovereignty)&metatag-description=(Active diplomatic correspondence and bilateral-negotiation records protected under §8[1][a] sovereignty / strategic interests.)}}
	+
	+	====== Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Live diplomatic cables & bilateral-negotiation content are §8(1)(a) protected (sovereignty and strategic interest).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of External Affairs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Active diplomatic correspondence and bilateral-negotiation records protected under §8(1)(a) sovereignty / strategic interests.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Active diplomatic correspondence and records of ongoing bilateral negotiations are protected under §8(1)(a) — sovereignty and integrity of India, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. The protection applies during the active-diplomacy phase; historical archives may be disclosable on a case-by-case basis.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	diplomatic, MEA, §8(1)(a), sovereignty
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-isro-public-records-2019\|ISRO non-operational records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-enforcement-directorate-2021\|Enforcement Directorate records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-governor-office-2022\|Governor's Office records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-gail-pipeline-2022\|GAIL pipeline records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

DRDO technology-transfer licences — CIC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DRDO technology-transfer licences — CIC 2024,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,DRDO,ToT,section 8(1)(a),section 24,defence industry)&metatag-description=(ToT licensee names and royalty aggregates disclosable; underlying technology specifications remain §8[1][a]. ToT governance is transparent; weapon specifications.)}}
	+
	+	====== DRDO technology-transfer licences — CIC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-07-25 · CIC/DRDO/A/2024/34567
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	ToT licensee names and royalty aggregates disclosable; underlying technology specifications remain §8[1][a]. ToT governance is transparent; weapon specifications.
	+
	+	//ToT governance is transparent; weapon specifications are sovereignty-exempt.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-07-25 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC/DRDO/A/2024/34567 \|
	+	^ Bench \| S, a, r, o, j, , P, u, n, h, a, n, i, , I, C \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Defence Industries Assoc \|
	+	^ Respondent \| DRDO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	ToT licensee names and royalty aggregates disclosable; underlying technology specifications remain §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	DRDO is not in the §24 Second Schedule. Transfer of Technology agreements with private Indian industry are disclosable at the metadata level — licensee, date, royalty structure, performance milestones. Technical specifications of strategic systems attract §8(1)(a). The Commission directed DRDO to publish a quarterly ToT-licensee register.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	DRDO, ToT, section 8(1)(a), section 24, defence industry
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-space-exports-2023\|Space-sector exports/clearances — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-isro-public-records-2019\|ISRO non-operational records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-cic-drdo-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-24}}

NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,NEP 2020,education,CIC,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(National Education Policy 2020 implementation roadmap, state-wise progress, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA data — §4[1][b]. NEP 2020 implementation + state progress data:.)}}
	+
	+	====== NEP 2020 implementation records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	National Education Policy 2020 implementation roadmap, state-wise progress, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA data — §4[1][b]. NEP 2020 implementation + state progress data:.
	+
	+	//NEP 2020 implementation + state progress data: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure required.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Education researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of Education \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	National Education Policy 2020 implementation roadmap, state-wise progress, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA data — §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National Education Policy, 2020 implementation roadmap, state-wise progress dashboards, PM-POSHAN statistics, SAMAGRA SHIKSHA fund utilisation — all are records of central education-scheme implementation. §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme disclosure required.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NEP 2020, education, CIC, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-educational-right-to-know-2023\|Education right-to-know — SC directive]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/allahabad-hc-rti-basic-shiksha-2023\|Basic Shiksha Parishad — teacher records — Allahabad HC]] (HC-UP 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-smart-city-project-2021\|Smart-city project details — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-budget-mid-day-meal-2018\|Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,Electoral Bonds,SBI,Election Commission,post-ADR)&metatag-description=(Post-SC Electoral Bonds ruling: RTI applications for donor / recipient data are allowed; SBI directed to comply. Post-ADR (Electoral Bonds 2024): RTI disclosures.)}}
	+
	+	====== Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-ADR (Electoral Bonds 2024): RTI disclosures of donor + political-party receipt data now permissible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Election Commission / SBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-SC Electoral Bonds ruling: RTI applications for donor / recipient data are allowed; SBI directed to comply.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's ADR ruling (2024) striking down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, RTI applications seeking donor names, amounts, encashment dates, and political-party recipient data are permissible. SBI and the Election Commission directed to comply.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Electoral Bonds, SBI, Election Commission, post-ADR
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8 landmark}}

Enforcement Directorate records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Enforcement Directorate records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,ED,PMLA,§24,§8(1)(h))&metatag-description=(ED is §24 exempt; active PMLA / FEMA investigation records protected under §8[1][h] regardless of applicant's standing. ED = §24 exempt organisation; active PMLA.)}}
	+
	+	====== Enforcement Directorate records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	ED is §24 exempt; active PMLA / FEMA investigation records protected under §8[1][h] regardless of applicant's standing. ED = §24 exempt organisation; active PMLA.
	+
	+	//ED = §24 exempt organisation; active PMLA investigation records absolutely §8(1)(h)-protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Accused / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Enforcement Directorate \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	ED is §24 exempt; active PMLA / FEMA investigation records protected under §8(1)(h) regardless of applicant's standing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Enforcement Directorate is notified under the Second Schedule (§24). Active investigations under PMLA, FEMA, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act are additionally protected under §8(1)(h). Only post-conclusion summary orders may be sought; own chargesheet once filed is available through CPC certified-copies procedure at court.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ED, PMLA, §24, §8(1)(h)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-high-court-registry-2022\|High Court Registry records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-24}}

Environmental clearance grant records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Environmental clearance grant records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,environmental clearance,EIA,MoEFCC,CIC,§4)&metatag-description=(Granted EC letters, project-specific EIA reports and public-hearing records — mandatory public disclosure under §4. Granted Environmental Clearance + EIA reports +.)}}
	+
	+	====== Environmental clearance grant records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Granted Environmental Clearance + EIA reports + public-hearing records: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure required.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Environmental NGO \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MoEFCC / SEIAA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Granted EC letters, project-specific EIA reports and public-hearing records — mandatory public disclosure under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Environmental Clearance letters issued under the EIA Notification 2006 (as amended), project-specific EIA reports, and public-hearing minutes are documents of pronounced public interest. §4(1)(b) requires proactive disclosure on the MoEFCC / SEIAA portal from the date of grant.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	environmental clearance, EIA, MoEFCC, CIC, §4
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-coal-india-mining-2021\|Coal India mining records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-sikkim-rti-tourism-project-2020\|Tourism project records — Sikkim HC]] (HC-SK 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-himachal-rti-forest-clearance-2020\|Forest clearance records — Himachal HC]] (HC-HP 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,EPFO,defaulting employer,workers,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(EPFO defaulting-employer list — employer name, default period, amount — is §4[1][b] public-interest disclosure. EPFO defaulting-employer list = §4(1)(b).)}}
	+
	+	====== EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	EPFO defaulting-employer list — employer name, default period, amount — is §4[1][b] public-interest disclosure. EPFO defaulting-employer list = §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	//EPFO defaulting-employer list = §4(1)(b) public-interest disclosure for worker protection.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Worker / trade-union \|
	+	^ Respondent \| EPFO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	EPFO defaulting-employer list — employer name, default period, amount — is §4(1)(b) public-interest disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Employers' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) maintains a register of defaulting employers — those who have not deposited PF contributions deducted from employees. This list is public-interest information under §4(1)(b); worker protection demands proactive publication. Individual salary-slip-level employee data remains §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	EPFO, defaulting employer, workers, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-records-2021\|EPFO account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lok-sabha-mp-salary-2020\|MP salary + allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

EPFO account records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:05 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(EPFO account records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,EPF,EPFO,CIC,retirement)&metatag-description=(Member's own EPF account records — contributions, withdrawals, interest — fully disclosable. EPF member's own account data fully accessible under RTI; portal is.)}}
	+
	+	====== EPFO account records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Member's own EPF account records — contributions, withdrawals, interest — fully disclosable. EPF member's own account data fully accessible under RTI; portal is.
	+
	+	//EPF member's own account data fully accessible under RTI; portal is supplementary.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Member / EPF account holder \|
	+	^ Respondent \| EPFO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Member's own EPF account records — contributions, withdrawals, interest — fully disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An EPF member is entitled to complete records of his own account — contribution history, employer shares, interest credits, withdrawal requests — under RTI. The EPFO member portal provides this as a matter of routine; RTI is a supplementary route for disputes.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	EPF, EPFO, CIC, retirement
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-defaulters-2022\|EPFO defaulter-employer records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-bihar-rti-jandhan-2022\|Jan Dhan account opening records — Bihar SIC]] (SIC-BR 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-income-tax-assessment-own-2022\|Own income-tax assessment order — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-bsnl-subscriber-2020\|BSNL subscriber records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,foreign confidential,§8(1)(f),CIC)&metatag-description=(Information received in confidence from foreign governments protected under §8[1][f] regardless of age. §8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from.)}}
	+
	+	====== Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Information received in confidence from foreign governments protected under §8[1][f] regardless of age. §8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from.
	+
	+	//§8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from foreign governments — duration-agnostic.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of External Affairs / Central Government \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Information received in confidence from foreign governments protected under §8(1)(f) regardless of age.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from foreign governments without a time-limit. The §8(3) 20-year sunset explicitly excludes §8(1)(a), (c), (i) but §8(1)(f) is not listed — however, the confidentiality undertaking typically survives longer than any sunset.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	foreign confidential, §8(1)(f), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pmo-records-2019\|PMO records scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-3-citizen-not-person-2012\|§3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons']] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,FCRA,MHA,aggregate,CIC,NGO)&metatag-description=(MHA's aggregate FCRA statistics — total NGOs, foreign donors, top recipients, cancellations — §4 proactive disclosure. MHA aggregate FCRA stats + cancellation list.)}}
	+
	+	====== FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	MHA's aggregate FCRA statistics — total NGOs, foreign donors, top recipients, cancellations — §4 proactive disclosure. MHA aggregate FCRA stats + cancellation list.
	+
	+	//MHA aggregate FCRA stats + cancellation list = §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Journalist / researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MHA's aggregate FCRA statistics — total NGOs, foreign donors, top recipients, cancellations — §4 proactive disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Ministry of Home Affairs aggregate FCRA statistics — total registered NGOs, country-wise donor distribution, top recipients, list of cancellations — are §4(1)(b) material. Individual NGO's specific donor list is disclosable subject to narrow commercial / privacy carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, MHA, aggregate, CIC, NGO
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-bombay-rti-ngo-fcra-compliance-2021\|NGO FCRA-compliance scrutiny — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-assam-rti-citizens-register-2022\|NRC aggregate statistics — Gauhati HC]] (HC-GAU 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

FSSAI food-licensing records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(FSSAI food-licensing records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,FSSAI,food safety,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(FSSAI food-business license registers, inspection reports, and sample-test results = §4[1][b] disclosure. FSSAI license registers + inspection + sample-test.)}}
	+
	+	====== FSSAI food-licensing records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	FSSAI food-business license registers, inspection reports, and sample-test results = §4[1][b] disclosure. FSSAI license registers + inspection + sample-test.
	+
	+	//FSSAI license registers + inspection + sample-test results: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Consumer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| FSSAI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	FSSAI food-business license registers, inspection reports, and sample-test results = §4(1)(b) disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is a statutory body under FSS Act 2006 and §2(h) public authority. Food-business license registers, routine inspection reports, sample-test results, and enforcement actions are §4(1)(b) material — public-health disclosure is mandatory.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FSSAI, food safety, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-statutory-boards-2023\|Statutory boards under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-dda-records-2019\|DDA housing records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-jharkhand-rti-ration-scheme-2021\|PDS scheme records — Jharkhand HC]] (HC-JH 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

GAIL pipeline records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(GAIL pipeline records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,GAIL,pipeline,§8(1)(a),infrastructure)&metatag-description=(GAIL is §2[h]; pipeline routing/capacity [aggregate] disclosable; specific-route strategic details §8[1][a]. GAIL = §2(h); aggregate pipeline data disclosable;.)}}
	+
	+	====== GAIL pipeline records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	GAIL is §2[h]; pipeline routing/capacity [aggregate] disclosable; specific-route strategic details §8[1][a]. GAIL = §2(h); aggregate pipeline data disclosable;.
	+
	+	//GAIL = §2(h); aggregate pipeline data disclosable; strategic routing §8(1)(a) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| GAIL \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	GAIL is §2(h); pipeline routing/capacity (aggregate) disclosable; specific-route strategic details §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	GAIL (India) Limited, majority-government-owned, is a public authority under §2(h). Aggregate pipeline network data, capacity additions, and environmental-clearance records are disclosable. Specific-route strategic details (pipeline-vulnerability assessments) are §8(1)(a) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	GAIL, pipeline, §8(1)(a), infrastructure
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-isro-public-records-2019\|ISRO non-operational records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-police-beat-records-2023\|Police beat / patrol records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-space-exports-2023\|Space-sector exports/clearances — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-digital-payment-npci-2021\|NPCI records scope — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-environmental-clearance-granted-2020\|Environmental clearance grant records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

High Court Registry records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(High Court Registry records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,HC Registry,§2(h),§8(1)(b),certified copies)&metatag-description=(HC Registry is §2[h]; administrative records disclosable; case-specific records via CPC certified-copies procedure. HC Registry = §2(h) public authority; admin.)}}
	+
	+	====== High Court Registry records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	HC Registry is §2[h]; administrative records disclosable; case-specific records via CPC certified-copies procedure. HC Registry = §2(h) public authority; admin.
	+
	+	//HC Registry = §2(h) public authority; admin records disclosable, case records via CPC procedure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Litigant / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| High Court Registry \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	HC Registry is §2(h); administrative records disclosable; case-specific records via CPC certified-copies procedure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	High Court Registries are public authorities under §2(h). Administrative records — recruitment, budget, CAG audit responses, §4(1)(b) disclosures — are disclosable under RTI. Case-specific records (pleadings, orders) remain accessible through the court's certified-copies procedure under CPC and HC Rules, not RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	HC Registry, §2(h), §8(1)(b), certified copies
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-enforcement-directorate-2021\|Enforcement Directorate records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-appellate-tribunal-records-2022\|Appellate Tribunal records — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

IIT / NIT admission data — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(IIT / NIT admission data — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,IIT,NIT,admission,§4,CIC)&metatag-description=(IIT/NIT admission records — cutoffs, branch-fill-up, seat-matrix — are public records disclosable under §4. //IIT / NIT cutoffs, branch-filling & seat-matrix are.)}}
	+
	+	====== IIT / NIT admission data — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	IIT/NIT admission records — cutoffs, branch-fill-up, seat-matrix — are public records disclosable under §4. //IIT / NIT cutoffs, branch-filling & seat-matrix are.
	+
	+	//IIT / NIT cutoffs, branch-filling & seat-matrix are §4 proactive-disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / parent \|
	+	^ Respondent \| IIT / NIT / CoE \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	IIT/NIT admission records — cutoffs, branch-fill-up, seat-matrix — are public records disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Centrally-funded technical institutions are public authorities. Admission-related aggregate data — round-wise cutoffs, category-wise opening/closing ranks, branch filling, seat utilisation — is §4(1)(b) material. Individual candidate data is §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	IIT, NIT, admission, §4, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-iit-delhi-admissions-2023\|IIT Delhi admission records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-nit-admission-2021\|NIT admission records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-recruitment-2022\|IIT faculty recruitment — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/kendriya-vidyalaya-v-cic-2013-del-hc\|Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

IIT faculty recruitment — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:04 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(IIT faculty recruitment — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,IIT,faculty recruitment,§8(1)(e),CIC)&metatag-description=(IIT faculty recruitment — published criteria + candidate's own evaluation disclosable; panel deliberations §8[1][e]. IIT faculty recruitment: criteria + own.)}}
	+
	+	====== IIT faculty recruitment — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	IIT faculty recruitment — published criteria + candidate's own evaluation disclosable; panel deliberations §8[1][e]. IIT faculty recruitment: criteria + own.
	+
	+	//IIT faculty recruitment: criteria + own evaluation disclosable; panel deliberation §8(1)(e).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate \|
	+	^ Respondent \| IIT Bombay \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	IIT faculty recruitment — published criteria + candidate's own evaluation disclosable; panel deliberations §8(1)(e).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	IITs are §2(h) public authorities. Faculty recruitment — published eligibility criteria, post-wise vacancy, successful candidate's profile after final selection — is disclosable. Selection-panel internal deliberations on comparative merit remain §8(1)(e) protected narrowly.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	IIT, faculty recruitment, §8(1)(e), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/hc-calcutta-rti-teacher-recruitment-2022\|School Service Commission records — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-iit-delhi-admissions-2023\|IIT Delhi admission records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

Own income-tax assessment order — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Own income-tax assessment order — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,income tax,own assessment,CIC)&metatag-description=(Taxpayer is entitled to his own assessment order, scrutiny notices and correspondence under RTI. Taxpayer's own assessment file fully accessible under RTI;.)}}
	+
	+	====== Own income-tax assessment order — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Taxpayer is entitled to his own assessment order, scrutiny notices and correspondence under RTI. Taxpayer's own assessment file fully accessible under RTI;.
	+
	+	//Taxpayer's own assessment file fully accessible under RTI; §8(1)(j) does not apply to data subject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Taxpayer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Income Tax Department \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Taxpayer is entitled to his own assessment order, scrutiny notices and correspondence under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A taxpayer is entitled to his own assessment order, scrutiny notices, correspondence and representation record under RTI. The IT portal provides most of this routinely; RTI is the statutory route for older / non-portal records. §8(1)(j) cannot be invoked against the data subject.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	income tax, own assessment, CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-property-tax-assessment-2020\|Property-tax assessment records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022\|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-service-book-personal-2021\|Service book disclosure to public servant — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

Trade-body interactions with government — CIC

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

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Trade-body interactions with government — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,CII,FICCI,consultation,§4)&metatag-description=(Ministry meetings with trade bodies [CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM] — meeting minutes and consultation records — are §4 material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Trade-body interactions with government — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Government-trade-body consultations (CII/FICCI meetings): §4(1)(b) disclosure of minutes + consultation records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of Commerce \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Ministry meetings with trade bodies (CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM) — meeting minutes and consultation records — are §4 material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of government consultations with trade bodies — Confederation of Indian Industry, FICCI, ASSOCHAM — are records of the public authority's functioning. §4(1)(b)(iii) and (iv) require proactive disclosure of meeting minutes, policy-consultation records, and industry-representation memoranda.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CII, FICCI, consultation, §4
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-whitepaper-government-2020\|Government white paper / discussion drafts — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-section-11-timeline-2011\|§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

ISRO non-operational records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(ISRO non-operational records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,ISRO,§8(1)(a),CIC,space)&metatag-description=(ISRO's non-strategic records [launch schedules, public contracts] disclosable; payload-specific strategic data §8[1][a].)}}
	+
	+	====== ISRO non-operational records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	ISRO's non-strategic records [launch schedules, public contracts] disclosable; payload-specific strategic data §8[1][a].
	+
	+	//ISRO: launch schedules + public contracts disclosable; payload-specific strategic data §8(1)(a).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / journalist \|
	+	^ Respondent \| ISRO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	ISRO's non-strategic records (launch schedules, public contracts) disclosable; payload-specific strategic data §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	ISRO is a public authority. Non-strategic records — launch schedules, vendor-contract summaries, public-consumption mission data, scientific-paper publication records — are disclosable. Payload-specific strategic data and dual-use technology details are protected under §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ISRO, §8(1)(a), CIC, space
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-space-exports-2023\|Space-sector exports/clearances — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-gail-pipeline-2022\|GAIL pipeline records — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pmo-records-2019\|PMO records scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-diplomatic-cables-2016\|Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-police-beat-records-2023\|Police beat / patrol records — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

LIC policy-holder records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(LIC policy-holder records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,LIC,§2(h),own policy)&metatag-description=(LIC is §2[h]; policy-holder's own policy records, premium history, claim status fully accessible. LIC = §2(h); own policy records fully accessible; third-party.)}}
	+
	+	====== LIC policy-holder records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	LIC is §2[h]; policy-holder's own policy records, premium history, claim status fully accessible. LIC = §2(h); own policy records fully accessible; third-party.
	+
	+	//LIC = §2(h); own policy records fully accessible; third-party data §8(1)(j) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Policy holder \|
	+	^ Respondent \| LIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	LIC is §2(h); policy-holder's own policy records, premium history, claim status fully accessible.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Life Insurance Corporation of India is a statutory corporation under the LIC Act 1956 and public authority under §2(h). A policy-holder's own policy documents, premium payment history, claim-status and correspondence are fully accessible. Third-party policy data remains §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	LIC, §2(h), own policy
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sbi-depositor-2021\|Bank depositor's own account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-bsnl-subscriber-2020\|BSNL subscriber records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cvc-vigilance-circulars-2020\|CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

MP salary + allowances — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:02 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(MP salary + allowances — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,MP salary,MPLAD,§4(1)(b)(x),Lok Sabha)&metatag-description=(MP salary, allowances, LAD-fund utilisation, and international-travel records are §4[1][b] proactive disclosure. //MP salary + LAD fund + travel records:.)}}
	+
	+	====== MP salary + allowances — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MP salary + LAD fund + travel records: §4(1)(b)(x) proactive disclosure by Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha Secretariats.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / journalist \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Lok Sabha Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(x) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MP salary, allowances, LAD-fund utilisation, and international-travel records are §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Statutory salary of Members of Parliament (under Salaries, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act 1954), MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) fund utilisation records, and official international-travel records are public records. §4(1)(b)(x) requires proactive publication by the Secretariats.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	MP salary, MPLAD, §4(1)(b)(x), Lok Sabha
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-judicial-salary-2019\|Judges' salary / allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-parliament-secretariat-2019\|Parliament Secretariat RTI scope — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-maharashtra-corporator-records-2019\|Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC]] (SIC-MH 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-jharkhand-rti-mining-2022\|Mining district-fund records — Jharkhand SIC]] (SIC-JH 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

NIT admission records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:04 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(NIT admission records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,NIT,JoSAA,CSAB,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission-round data — round cutoffs, branch filling, reservation compliance — = §4 disclosure. //JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission data: §4(1)(b).)}}
	+
	+	====== NIT admission records — CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission-round data — round cutoffs, branch filling, reservation compliance — = §4 disclosure. //JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission data: §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	//JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission data: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate \|
	+	^ Respondent \| JoSAA / NIT \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	JoSAA / CSAB / NIT admission-round data — round cutoffs, branch filling, reservation compliance — = §4 disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) and Central Seat Allocation Board (CSAB) for IIT/NIT admissions operate as public authorities through the administering institutes. Round-wise cutoffs, branch-filling patterns, reservation-category compliance are §4(1)(b) material. Individual candidate rank is accessible to that candidate.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NIT, JoSAA, CSAB, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-iit-delhi-admissions-2023\|IIT Delhi admission records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/kendriya-vidyalaya-v-cic-2013-del-hc\|Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-rajasthan-rti-ngt-compliance-2021\|NGT order compliance records — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

Banking/Insurance Ombudsman referrals — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Banking/Insurance Ombudsman referrals — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,Banking Ombudsman,Insurance Ombudsman,§2(h),CIC)&metatag-description=(Banking and Insurance Ombudsman offices are public authorities; consumer's own complaint + outcome disclosable. //Banking/Insurance Ombudsman = §2(h); consumer's.)}}
	+
	+	====== Banking/Insurance Ombudsman referrals — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Banking and Insurance Ombudsman offices are public authorities; consumer's own complaint + outcome disclosable. //Banking/Insurance Ombudsman = §2(h); consumer's.
	+
	+	//Banking/Insurance Ombudsman = §2(h); consumer's own complaint + outcome fully accessible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Consumer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ombudsman office / RBI / IRDAI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Banking and Insurance Ombudsman offices are public authorities; consumer's own complaint + outcome disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Banking Ombudsman (under RBI) and Insurance Ombudsman (under IRDAI) offices are public authorities under §2(h). A consumer is entitled to complete records of his own complaint — correspondence, bank/insurer response, ombudsman order. Third-party complaints remain §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Banking Ombudsman, Insurance Ombudsman, §2(h), CIC
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lic-policy-records-2021\|LIC policy-holder records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-income-tax-assessment-own-2022\|Own income-tax assessment order — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

ONDC open commerce records — CIC 2024

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(ONDC open commerce records — CIC 2024,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,ONDC,section 2(h),Thalappalam,substantial financing,Section 8 company)&metatag-description=(ONDC is substantially government-financed and is a §2[h] public authority. ONDC meets the Thalappalam substantial-finance test.)}}
	+
	+	====== ONDC open commerce records — CIC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-05-30 · CIC/DCOMM/A/2024/12345
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	ONDC is substantially government-financed and is a §2[h] public authority. ONDC meets the Thalappalam substantial-finance test.
	+
	+	//ONDC meets the Thalappalam substantial-finance test.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-05-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC/DCOMM/A/2024/12345 \|
	+	^ Bench \| U, d, a, y, , M, a, h, u, r, k, a, r, , I, C \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Digital Rights Forum \|
	+	^ Respondent \| ONDC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	ONDC is substantially government-financed and is a §2(h) public authority.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Open Network for Digital Commerce, though incorporated as a Section 8 company, was seeded by 100% government-linked entity equity (DPIIT, NSE, PSU banks) and continues to be substantially financed. Under //Thalappalam//, it qualifies as §2(h)(d)(i) public authority. Governance records and buyer-seller protocol policies must be disclosed.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ONDC, section 2(h), Thalappalam, substantial financing, Section 8 company
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-cic-ondc-2024/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Section 20 penalty on PIO for deliberate delay — Madras HC 2020,Madras High Court RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,RTI §20,section 20,PIO penalty,Rs 25 000,reasonable cause,deliberate delay)&metatag-description=(Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20[1] penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.)}}
	+
	+	====== Section 20 penalty on PIO for deliberate delay — Madras HC 2020 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Madras High Court · 2020-09-24 · 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4312
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20[1] penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.
	+
	+	//Deliberate PIO delay without recorded reasonable cause attracts the full §20(1) penalty.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Madras High Court \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-09-24 \|
	+	^ Citation \| 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4312 \|
	+	^ Bench \| M, ., , G, o, v, i, n, d, a, r, a, j, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| M. Senthil Kumaran \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Information Commission & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1), §19(8)(c), §20(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Upheld SIC imposition of Rs 25,000 maximum §20(1) penalty on the PIO; mechanical excuses do not displace the reasonable-cause bar.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The SIC's order imposing the statutory maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on the PIO under §20(1) was sustained. Madras HC held that a PIO seeking to avoid penalty must produce contemporaneous evidence of reasonable cause — mechanical assertions of workload or administrative difficulty are inadequate. Where the PIO has shown disregard for the 30-day timeline over multiple RTI applications, the SIC's discretion to impose the statutory maximum is a proper exercise of appellate power under §19(8)(c).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	section 20, PIO penalty, Rs 25,000, reasonable cause, deliberate delay
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-pio-penalty-2020\|§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-pension-delay-2022\|Pension sanction delay — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All Madras High Court rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-madras-hc-pio-penalty-2020/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-7 section-19 section-20}}

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Secretary General Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CJI,judges' assets,Delhi HC Full Bench,§2(h),§8(1)(j))&metatag-description=(Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019]. CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets.)}}
	+
	+	====== Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) · 2010-01-12 · ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019]. CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets.
	+
	+	//CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets accessible subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.P. Shah, Vikramajit Sen, S. Muralidhar \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Secretary General, Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI (affirmed by SC 2019).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Voluntary asset declarations made by judges to the CJI are disclosable under RTI subject to §8(1)(j) balancing. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CJI, judges' assets, Delhi HC Full Bench, §2(h), §8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-judicial-salary-2019\|Judges' salary / allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579064/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8 landmark}}

2026/05/03 11:03	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer),Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) RTI,open government,transparency,Article 19(1)(a),foundational)&metatag-description=(Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19[1][a]; limited by national security etc. Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception.)}}
	+
	+	====== S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 1981-12-30 · AIR 1982 SC 149 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19[1][a]; limited by national security etc. Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception.
	+
	+	//Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception. Open government is the basic rule.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 1981-12-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| AIR 1982 SC 149 \|
	+	^ Bench \| P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, R.S. Pathak, E.S. Venkataramiah \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| S.P. Gupta & Ors. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| — \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19(1)(a); limited by national security etc.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The right to know emanates from the right of free speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a). Disclosure of information is the rule; concealment, the exception.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	open government, transparency, Article 19(1)(a), foundational
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
	+
	+	//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/union-of-india-v-association-for-democratic-reforms-2002-sc\|Union of India v. ADR (2002)]] (SC 2002)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc landmark}}