Right to Information Wiki

RTI cannot be denied as "irrelevant" — Adesh Kumar v. Union of India

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2020/02/14 04:11		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI relevance test,Adesh Kumar v Union of India,Section 3 RTI right to information,information cannot be denied as irrelevant,Delhi HC RTI 2014)
-	{{ :important-decisions:court:information_cannot_be_denied.png \|}}	+	metatag-description=(Delhi HC 2014 ruling: a PIO cannot deny RTI by saying the information is irrelevant. Section 3 gives citizens an unconditional right to information held by.)}}
-	Judgement by Delhi High Court	+

-	Case name: {{ :important-decisions:court-case-laws:adesh_kumar_vs_union_of_india___ors._on_16_december__2014.pdf \|Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2014)}}	+	====== RTI cannot be denied as "irrelevant" — Adesh Kumar v. Union of India ======

-	Judgement:	+	The Delhi High Court ruled in 2014 that a Public Information Officer cannot deny an RTI application by labelling the requested information as "irrelevant" or "unnecessary". Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives every citizen an unconditional right to information held by a public authority — the citizen does not have to justify why the information is needed.

-	//..the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary is not relevant or germane in the context of the [[act:\|Act]]; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant.//	+	**Adesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others**
		+	{{tag>delhi-hc section-3 rti-right-to-information relevance-test pio-refusal 2014}}{{like>}}

-	- Delhi Hight Court	+	===== The issue before the Court =====

		+	The petitioner had filed an RTI under §6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The PIO refused, observing that the information sought was "not relevant" and "not germane" to any public interest. The CIC had upheld the refusal. The applicant approached the Delhi High Court.

-	<html>	+	The threshold question: can a PIO refuse an RTI on the ground that the information sought is not relevant or not necessary?
-	<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-6s+ed+2i-1n-4w"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6792451866"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	===== Read More =====	+	===== The holding =====

-	{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}	+	The Delhi High Court (single judge bench) emphatically said NO. The key passage:
-	[<>]	+
		+	> "The question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant." — paragraph 18.
		+
		+	In other words, §3 of the RTI Act creates an unconditional right. The PIO's only legitimate grounds for refusal are the enumerated exemptions in §8 and §9 of the RTI Act — and "irrelevance" is not on that list.
		+
		+	===== Why this case matters for citizens =====
		+
		+	This is one of the most-cited Delhi HC rulings in routine RTI matters because:
		+
		+	- Many PIOs first try to refuse by saying "your application is vague" or "this information is not relevant to you" or "you have not stated the purpose". These are NOT valid grounds under the RTI Act.
		+	- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act expressly forbids the PIO from asking for the reason for seeking information (except contact details).
		+	- Adesh Kumar is the case you cite when the PIO tries the "irrelevance" gambit.
		+
		+	===== The PIO refusal-grounds checklist =====
		+
		+	A PIO can ONLY refuse RTI on these grounds:
		+
		+	- §8(1)(a) — sovereignty / integrity / security
		+	- §8(1)(b) — expressly forbidden by court
		+	- §8(1)(c) — breach of privilege of Parliament / Legislature
		+	- §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence / trade secret / IP
		+	- §8(1)(e) — fiduciary relationship
		+	- §8(1)(f) — foreign government info in confidence
		+	- §8(1)(g) — would endanger life / source / process
		+	- §8(1)(h) — impeded process of investigation / prosecution
		+	- §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers (with carve-out post-decision)
		+	- §8(1)(j) — personal information (proviso amended by DPDP 2023)
		+	- §9 — third-party copyright
		+
		+	Anything outside this list — including "irrelevance" — is an unlawful refusal.
		+
		+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
		+
		+	The ruling remains good law and is routinely cited at FAAs and Information Commissions. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) does not affect this case — the §44(3) amendment touched only §8(1)(j); §3 (the right itself) is intact.
		+
		+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
		+
		+	*If your RTI is rejected with language like "the information sought is irrelevant" or "you have not stated why you need this", file a §19(1) First Appeal within 30 days, citing:*
		+
		+	- Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005 — the unconditional right.
		+	- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 — the express bar on asking the applicant to state reasons.
		+	- Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3543/2014, decided 16 December 2014 — the irrelevance-is-not-a-ground rule.
		+
		+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] — it has this citation pre-loaded.
		+
		+	===== Sections engaged =====
		+
		+	* Section 3 — Right to information; "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."
		+	* Section 6(2) — Bar on asking for reasons; "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information."
		+	* Section 8 — The exemption list (closed list).
		+	* Section 19(1) — First Appeal.
		+
		+	===== Citation =====
		+
		+	Adesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) 3543/2014, decided 16 December 2014 by the Delhi High Court (single bench). The full judgment PDF is in the case-law media folder.
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	* Delhi High Court, Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, 16 December 2014. Cited routinely at CIC and SIC.
		+	* Right to Information Act, 2005, §3, §6(2), §8, §19. [[:act\|Full text]].
		+	* Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner — Delhi HC 2008 — companion ruling that procedural objections cannot defeat RTI.
		+
		+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
		+
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural-objections-cannot-defeat-RTI]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
		+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]]
		+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
		+
		+	{{tag>delhi-hc adesh-kumar relevance-test section-3 section-6-2 pio-refusal 2014 2026-update}}

-	~~socialite~~

Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (2007)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (2007) ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court-bhagat-singh-vs-cic.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court / bhagat-singh-vs-cic — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bhagat Singh CIC Delhi High Court, Bhagat Singh RTI, investigation pending RTI, Section 8(1)(h) Delhi HC, bhagat singh income tax RTI, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(Landmark Delhi High Court judgment in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (2007) — narrow reading of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the principle.)}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? //Bhagat Singh// was one of the very first writ-court articulations of the RTI Act's default-disclosure principle, decided less than two years after the Act came into force. Its language — "the Right to Information Act is an important statute aimed at curtailing the culture of secrecy" — is still quoted in Commission orders today.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Delhi High Court held that an income-tax investigation pending against the petitioner's wife could not be used as a blanket shield under Section 8(1)(h) to deny the petitioner access to the investigation report — once the assessment order had been passed, the investigation was effectively over, and disclosure could not impede what had already concluded.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Section 8(1)(h) ("would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution") requires a specific, present impediment — not a generic "investigation pending" label.
	+	* Once the investigation reaches a conclusion (assessment, charge sheet, closure report), the exemption falls away.
	+	* Default disclosure is the Act's animating principle.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	//Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.//, W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007.\\
	+	Bench: Justice Ravindra Bhat.\\
	+	Date of judgment: 3 December 2007.\\
	+	Court: High Court of Delhi.
	+
	+	===== The facts =====
	+
	+	The petitioner sought, under the RTI Act, the investigation report prepared by the Income Tax Department in connection with a proceeding involving his wife. He also sought copies of the tax evasion petition against her.
	+
	+	The CPIO refused, citing Section 8(1)(h) — that disclosure would impede the process of investigation. The First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission upheld the refusal. The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226.
	+
	+	===== The Court's reasoning =====
	+
	+	==== Section 8(1)(h) requires specific impediment ====
	+
	+	Justice Ravindra Bhat held that the investigation in question had already concluded — the assessment had been passed. Whatever "investigation" existed for purposes of Section 8(1)(h) was over. The CPIO could not invoke the clause as a general shield for all records connected to a historical investigation.
	+
	+	The Court reasoned: the Act uses the words "would impede" — a future tense, requiring the PIO to show how disclosure would actually impede an ongoing process. A closed investigation cannot be impeded.
	+
	+	==== Disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception ====
	+
	+	In language that is still quoted today, the Court observed:
	+
	+	> //"The Right to Information Act is an important statute aimed at curtailing the culture of secrecy... The disclosure of information is the rule. The exemptions listed in Section 8 are an exception."//
	+
	+	==== Remand for specific reasoning ====
	+
	+	The Court remanded the matter to the CIC with a direction that the Information Commission must examine each document sought and give specific reasons for any refusal — a generic invocation of Section 8(1)(h) was not acceptable.
	+
	+	===== Why it matters =====
	+
	+	* Blueprint for writ-court review of RTI refusals. //Bhagat Singh// established the template that High Courts across India have since used when reviewing RTI refusals — demand specific reasoning from the Commission, not accept generic exemption labels.
	+	* Narrow reading of Section 8(1)(h). PIOs cannot use "investigation pending" as a permanent shield. See [[:explanations:pendency-of-investigation\|Pendency of investigation]] and [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation under RTI]].
	+	* Default-disclosure principle. The Court's formulation — "disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception" — is invoked in Commission orders when weighing any Section 8 refusal.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text]]. Section 8(1)(h).
	+	* [[:explanations:pendency-of-investigation\|Pendency of investigation — Section 8(1)(h)]].
	+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation under RTI]].
	+	* [[:explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti\|Justification for denial under RTI]].
	+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+
	+	===== Status vs the 14 November 2025 DPDP amendment =====
	+
	+	//Bhagat Singh// engages Section 8(1)(h), which was not touched by the DPDP Rules, 2025. The judgment remains fully good law. Its proportionality-adjacent reasoning on "specific impediment" also aligns well with the //Puttaswamy// framework applied to other clauses.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.//, W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007, High Court of Delhi, decided 3 December 2007.
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 8(1)(h), 19.
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti case-law delhi-high-court section-8-1-h investigation-pending bhagat-singh 2007}}

Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings

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

2020/07/19 11:11		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings cannot be filed by a third party. ======	+	====== Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court-right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court / right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions court right to information applications for gujarat high court pleadings cannot be filed by a third party rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(//The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions...)}}

	//The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.//		//The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.//
Line 9:		Line 14:
	The Judgment set a precedent for all the High Courts, as well as the apex court.		The Judgment set a precedent for all the High Courts, as well as the apex court.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-6s+ed+2i-1n-4w"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6792451866"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>


Line 35:		Line 28:


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

	{{ :important-decisions:court:4228_2015_5_1501_21164_judgement_04-mar-2020.pdf \|Chief Information Commissioner Vs High Court of Gujarat}}		{{ :important-decisions:court:4228_2015_5_1501_21164_judgement_04-mar-2020.pdf \|Chief Information Commissioner Vs High Court of Gujarat}}

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	===== Related =====
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information\|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws\|Commission Decisions]].
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti\|Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing]].
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
-	<script>	+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:format-rti-cpio\|Format for giving information to the applicants]].
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
-	</html>	+
-	<>	+	{{tag>rti case-law court}}

Girish Deshpande: What is Personal Under RTI?

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

2020/08/19 14:52		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== All memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information ======	+	====== Girish Deshpande: What is Personal Under RTI? ======
-	<html>	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court-girish-ramchandra-deshpande.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court / girish-ramchandra-deshpande — RTI Wiki}}
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions court girish ramchandra deshpande rti right to information india)
-	style="display:block"	+	metatag-description=(The SCs 2013 test for personal information under Section 8(1)(j). What it blocks, what survives after DPDP 2025, and how to overcome it.)}}
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+	The SCs 2013 test for personal information under Section 8(1)(j). What it blocks, what survives after DPDP 2025, and how to overcome it.
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commission		Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Versus Central Information Commission
-	{{tag>SupremeCourt,Privacy,Public Servant}}{{like>}}	+	{{tag>supreme-court privacy public servant}}{{like>}}
-	{{ :important-decisions:court:sc-rti-girist-deshpande.jpg \|}}	+	{{ :important-decisions:court:sc-rti-girist-deshpande.jpg \|Girish Deshpande: What is Personal Under RTI? — RTI Wiki}}

	The issue before the Court: Whether the information pertaining to a Public Servant in respect of his service career and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties, can be denied on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.		The issue before the Court: Whether the information pertaining to a Public Servant in respect of his service career and also the details of his assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties, can be denied on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- 1st_post_rti -->	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="1840674224"	+
-	data-ad-format="auto"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	The observations of the Court: “12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.		The observations of the Court: “12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Line 36:		Line 22:
	We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.		We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

-	The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section-8exemption-from-disclosure-of-information\|Section 8(1)]] of the [[act:\|RTI Act]], unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”	+	The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act#section-8exemption-from-disclosure-of-information\|Section 8(1)]] of the [[:act:\|RTI Act]], unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

-	<html>
-	<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-6s+ed+2i-1n-4w"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6792451866"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	The Court held that: The Apex Court has held that copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and hence exempted.		The Court held that: The Apex Court has held that copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and hence exempted.
Line 56:		Line 31:

	{{indexmenu>:important-decisions#3\|context}}		{{indexmenu>:important-decisions#3\|context}}
		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
		+
		+	Decided on 3 October 2012 by the Supreme Court of India. The holding that information pertaining to a public servant's service, performance, disciplinary record, conduct record, and assets is personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 remains good law on the scope of the term "personal information".
		+
		+	The clause (j) that the case applied carried the public interest override within its own proviso. That proviso has been removed by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in force from 14 November 2025. The public interest override for a Section 8(1)(j) matter now sits in Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which has not been amended. Reasoning in the case that depends on the clause-(j) proviso must be read against the amendment. The substantive test for what counts as "personal information" set out in the case is not affected by the amendment.
		+
		+	===== Sections engaged =====
		+
		+	* Section 8(1)(j). Personal information exemption, as amended.
		+	* Section 8(2). Public interest override, not amended.
		+
		+	===== Citation =====
		+
		+	Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. Decided on 3 October 2012 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, JJ.
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012, dated 3 October 2012.
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(2).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on 14 November 2025.
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 19 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti case-law supreme-court section-8-1-j personal-information dpdp-2025}}

Madras High Court on public servants' assets (2024)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Madras High Court on public servants' assets (2024) ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court-madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court / madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024 — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Madras High Court public servants assets RTI, public servant assets disclosure India, Section 8(1)(j) public servants, Annual Property Returns RTI, madras hc 2024 RTI, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(Madras High Court direction (2024) on disclosure of public servants' assets under the Right to Information Act, 2005 — the public-interest override to Section.)}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Most All-India Service officers already file an Annual Property Return under their conduct rules. The information exists in government files. The Madras HC's 2024 direction simply acknowledged that records already in the government's keeping are not made private by labelling them "personal".
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Madras High Court held that Annual Property Returns and similar asset disclosures filed by public servants in the ordinary course of duty are disclosable under the RTI Act where a specific public interest is pleaded under Section 8(2).
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Blanket refusal of public servants' asset data under Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable.
	+	* The applicant must plead a specific public interest — for example, suspicion of disproportionate assets, investigation of corruption, or institutional integrity.
	+	* The relevant conduct rules (AIS Conduct Rules, Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, State equivalents) already require the filing of these returns.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Citation and context =====
	+
	+	Madras High Court order on RTI applications for public servants' asset disclosures, 2024. //Exact docket, parties, and the full text of the order should be consulted on the Madras High Court website and on [[https://indiankanoon.org\|Indian Kanoon]] for precise citation.//
	+
	+	The order sits within a broader 2024 re-affirmation across High Courts that transparency concerning public servants' conduct-related filings is constitutionally sustainable under the //Puttaswamy// proportionality framework.
	+
	+	===== The background =====
	+
	+	All-India Service officers and most Central and State Civil Service officers are required to file an Annual Property Return under their respective conduct rules. The returns list:
	+
	+	* Immovable property (land, buildings) held directly or by family members.
	+	* Significant movable property (investments, vehicles).
	+	* Loans and liabilities above the prescribed threshold.
	+
	+	The question that has come before several Information Commissions and High Courts is: are these returns disclosable under the RTI Act? The earlier Supreme Court line of cases — principally [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013)]] — held that such returns are generally exempt under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is shown.
	+
	+	===== The Madras direction =====
	+
	+	The Madras High Court's 2024 order reaffirmed the public-interest override in Section 8(2) for such disclosures, and clarified the contours:
	+
	+	* The applicant must plead a specific public interest — not merely curiosity.
	+	* Where the public interest is pleaded (for example, suspicion of disproportionate assets), the PIO must test that interest against the privacy harm.
	+	* Section 10 severance applies to family members' private data — identifying information about the officer's non-public-servant family members should be redacted; the officer's own holdings disclosed.
	+
	+	===== Implications =====
	+
	+	* For PIOs in State and Central public authorities — requests for Annual Property Returns need case-by-case assessment. A generic "8(1)(j)" refusal is no longer defensible where public interest is pleaded.
	+	* For journalists and activists — a well-drafted application that cites a specific public-interest ground (for instance, disproportionate-assets suspicion, policy-conflict-of-interest, integrity of a specific office) has a stronger footing.
	+	* For public servants — the conduct-rules filing is effectively a semi-public record. Privacy extends to the officer's family members' individual data, not the officer's own holdings.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text]]. Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10.
	+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy of public servants]].
	+	* [[:explanations:public-interest\|Public interest]].
	+	* [[:explanations:annual-confidential-report\|Annual Confidential Report]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013)]] — the foundational SC ruling on ACRs and property returns.
	+	* [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)]] — privacy framework.
	+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+
	+	===== Status vs the 14 November 2025 DPDP amendment =====
	+
	+	The Madras direction applied Section 8(1)(j) in its pre-amendment form. Post-14 November 2025, the same reasoning is carried through Section 8(2). The public-interest override remains the operative route. The initial wave of Commission orders under the amended clause will test whether the Madras framework holds. See [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment]].
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 8(1)(j), 8(2), 10.
	+	- The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
	+	- The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
	+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
	+	- //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti case-law madras-high-court section-8-1-j public-servants property-returns 2024}}

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — Delhi HC ruling on RTI access

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Arvind Kejriwal v CPIO,Kejriwal RTI cases,Delhi HC RTI,Section 8(1)(j) public servant Kejriwal,RTI activist case law)
	+	metatag-description=(Delhi HC ruling on Arvind Kejriwal's RTI - public servants cannot withhold information citing personal-information exemption under Section 8(1)(j). 2014 reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — Delhi HC ruling on RTI access ======
	+
	+	Delhi High Court ruled in 2014 that the Central Information Commission cannot direct disclosure of personal information of a public servant (here, the answer scripts of an IRS examination by then-IRS officer Arvind Kejriwal) without the subject of the information being heard under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
	+
	+	Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer & Anr.
	+	{{tag>delhi-hc rti-case-law section-8-1-j section-11 third-party-consultation arvind-kejriwal kejriwal-rti}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	A citizen filed an RTI seeking the answer scripts that Arvind Kejriwal had submitted to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) examination when he was a candidate. Kejriwal was named as the third party. The CIC directed disclosure. Kejriwal, as the third party affected, challenged the order in the Delhi High Court arguing:
	+
	+	- The information was personal information under §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
	+	- Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates that a third party whose information is sought must be given a notice and heard before the PIO decides on disclosure.
	+	- The CIC had bypassed this procedure.
	+
	+	===== The holding =====
	+
	+	The Delhi High Court (single judge bench) held:
	+
	+	- Answer scripts are "personal information" within the meaning of §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, applying the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande test (decided by the Supreme Court in 2012, just before this case).
	+	- Section 11 third-party consultation is mandatory — the PIO must serve a written notice on the third party within 5 days of receiving an RTI that pertains to that party's personal information; the third party then has 10 days to make a submission; and the PIO must consider that submission before deciding on disclosure.
	+	- The CIC erred by directing disclosure without remitting the matter for §11 consultation.
	+	- The matter was remanded to the PIO to follow the §11 procedure properly.
	+
	+	===== Why this case matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	If you are a third party in someone else's RTI (i.e., your own personal information is being sought), this case is your protection:
	+
	+	- The PIO must serve you a §11 notice — if it didn't, the proceeding is voidable.
	+	- You have 10 days to oppose disclosure or to argue why the public-interest threshold is not met.
	+	- Even after the PIO orders disclosure, you have a 30-day appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act.
	+	- If the disclosure has already happened in violation of §11, your remedy is a writ to the High Court under Article 226 (not the CIC).
	+
	+	If you are an applicant seeking another person's record, this case tells you: expect a §11 hearing. Build your public-interest argument upfront — Girish Deshpande's public-interest carve-out (now reframed under §8(2) post-DPDP 2023) is the door you have to walk through.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The ruling remains good law on §11 procedural compliance. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) does not change the §11 procedure — the §44(3) amendment only touched the §8(1)(j) proviso, not §11. The substantive test for what is "personal information" is unaffected.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 8(1)(j) — Personal-information exemption (proviso amended by DPDP §44(3) in force 14 Nov 2025).
	+	* Section 8(2) — Public-interest override (unchanged).
	+	* Section 11 — Third-party consultation procedure (5-day notice + 10-day reply + PIO decision).
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, WP (C) 4030/2010, decided 31 January 2014 by a single judge of the Delhi High Court. The order is on the Delhi HC website. The procedural ratio has been followed in subsequent matters, including [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481]] (Constitution Bench).
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	- As a citizen-applicant asking for someone else's records, expect a §11 hearing. Write your application with the public-interest argument front-loaded.
	+	- As a third party receiving a §11 notice, do not let the 10-day window lapse. File a written submission citing this case + Girish Deshpande.
	+	- As an FAA appellant, if the PIO ordered disclosure without §11, cite this case to argue the order is procedurally void.
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to insert §8(1)(j) + §11 citation language automatically.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* Delhi High Court, judgment in WP (C) 4030/2010, Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, 31 January 2014.
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005, §8(1)(j), §8(2), §11. [[:act\|Full text on RTI Wiki]].
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — Supreme Court personal-information test.
	+	* Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — proviso amendment.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) test]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — Constitution Bench]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC accountability]]
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>delhi-hc rti-case-law section-8-1-j section-11 arvind-kejriwal answer-scripts third-party-consultation 2014 2026-update}}

CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — RTI applies to office of CJI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — RTI applies to office of CJI ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CPIO Supreme Court Subhash Agarwal,office of CJI public authority,judges assets RTI,collegium RTI,Section 8(1)(j) judiciary,Constitution Bench RTI 2019,judicial accountability)
	+	metatag-description=(2019 Constitution Bench: Office of the CJI is a public authority under RTI. Judges' assets + collegium files are subject to RTI with §8(1)(j) public-interest balance.)}}
	+
	+	The 2019 Constitution Bench ruling that ended a decade of doubt: the Office of the Chief Justice of India IS a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Judges' assets, collegium recommendations and judicial postings are not automatically off-limits — they must pass a public-interest balance test.
	+
	+	Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
	+	{{tag>constitution-bench supreme-court office-of-cji collegium judges-assets section-8-1-j section-11}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	Three appeals filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India against three CIC orders that had sided with Subhash Chandra Agarwal, an RTI activist:
	+
	+	- Disclosure of judges' assets — Whether the Office of the CJI must disclose the asset declarations submitted by Supreme Court judges as required by the 1997 Full Court Resolution.
	+	- Supersession in elevations — Whether information on judges who were considered for elevation but were superseded must be disclosed.
	+	- Identity of a judge accused of influencing collegium — Whether the name of a Madras High Court judge (a "particular sitting judge") who allegedly influenced a collegium recommendation must be disclosed.
	+
	+	The threshold question for all three: is the office of the CJI a "public authority" under §2(h) of the RTI Act?
	+
	+	===== The Constitution Bench =====
	+
	+	The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench:
	+
	+	* CJI Ranjan Gogoi (presiding, with majority opinion authored by Justice Khanna on his behalf)
	+	* Justice N V Ramana (joined the majority)
	+	* Justice Sanjiv Khanna (wrote the lead majority opinion)
	+	* Justice D Y Chandrachud (concurring with separate opinion)
	+	* Justice Deepak Gupta (concurring with separate opinion)
	+
	+	The judgment was delivered on 13 November 2019, in the last week of CJI Gogoi's tenure.
	+
	+	===== The holdings =====
	+
	+	- Office of the CJI is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court of India is not a single monolith — the Office of the Registrar General, the Office of the CPIO and the Office of the CJI are distinct, but each falls within "public authority" because they are constituted by the Constitution and discharge public functions. The Delhi High Court 2010 ruling under appeal is upheld.
	+	- Judges' assets are "personal information" under §8(1)(j), but the exemption is not absolute. The CPIO must apply the public-interest balance test in the proviso to §8(1)(j). Asset declarations are submitted in trust to the office of the CJI; the citizen-public-interest test must be applied case by case.
	+	- Collegium files (correspondence, recommendation notes, dissents) are amenable to RTI, but with the §11 third-party consultation procedure triggered where the disclosure may affect the privacy of a judge or candidate. Confidential intelligence inputs from RAW / IB about judges may attract §8(1)(g) (information whose disclosure would endanger the source / process).
	+	- Supersession-related information can be disclosed unless privacy of the superseded judge is severely affected.
	+	- The matter remanded to the CPIO to apply the test afresh on each query.
	+
	+	===== Justice Chandrachud's concurring opinion — the strongest passage =====
	+
	+	> "Independence of the judiciary and the Right to Information are not in opposition. They are mutually reinforcing. Judicial accountability is a key pillar of judicial independence. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on transparency in its functioning, including in the appointment process. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a charter of accountability and the institution of the judiciary cannot, by definition, be exempt from it." — Justice D Y Chandrachud, paragraph 110.
	+
	+	This passage is now routinely cited in RTI matters concerning courts, tribunals, statutory bodies and other constitutional offices.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The ruling remains good law and is the principal authority for any RTI to a court or tribunal. Following the judgment:
	+
	+	- The Supreme Court website now publishes judges' financial disclosures voluntarily.
	+	- Collegium resolutions are routinely uploaded to the SC site since October 2017, and recent High Court Collegium recommendations are uploaded too.
	+	- The DPDP Act 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) deletes the proviso to §8(1)(j) and shifts the public-interest balance to §8(2). The substantive Subhash Agarwal test on what counts as "personal information" of judges is unaffected; only the locus of the public-interest test has moved within the same statute.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 2(h) — Public authority definition.
	+	* Section 8(1)(j) — Personal-information exemption (proviso removed by DPDP 2023).
	+	* Section 8(1)(g) — Information that would endanger the source.
	+	* Section 8(2) — Public-interest override (post-DPDP, applies sitewide).
	+	* Section 11 — Third-party consultation procedure.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010 (with Civil Appeal No 2683 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No 10045 of 2010), decided 13 November 2019 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Bench: CJI Ranjan Gogoi, N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, D Y Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta JJ (Justice Khanna writing for the bench; Justice Chandrachud concurring; Justice Gupta concurring).
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	If you want information from any High Court, Supreme Court, tribunal, NHRC, CIC, SIC, ECI — any constitutional office — this case is the foundation. Two clauses to weave into your RTI letter:
	+
	+	- Citation hook: "The Office of the CJI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, as held by the Constitution Bench in CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481. The same reasoning applies a fortiori to this office."
	+	- §8(1)(j) override hook: "Where any portion is held to attract personal-information exemption under Section 8(1)(j), I respectfully invoke the public-interest test under Section 8(2) read with the principle in CPIO Supreme Court (supra), paragraphs 88-92, requiring case-by-case balancing."
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-insert these citation lines, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] if you've been refused with a blanket §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010, CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, dated 13 November 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/2683/2683_2010_Judgement_13-Nov-2019.pdf\|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
	+	- Delhi High Court order under appeal: Secretary General, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2009 (162) DLT 135 (DB) — Delhi High Court Full Bench, 12 January 2010.
	+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(h), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 11. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act\|Full text of the RTI Act]].
	+	- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3) (deletes the §8(1)(j) proviso, in force 14 November 2025).
	+	- 1997 Full Court Resolution of the Supreme Court of India on judges' asset declaration (cited in the judgment).
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commission accountability]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database — 300+ decisions]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>supreme-court constitution-bench rti-case-law office-of-cji judges-assets collegium section-2-h section-8-1-j section-11 chandrachud subhash-agarwal 2019 judicial-accountability}}

Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commissions accountability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 May 2026 03:00:14 +0000

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commissions accountability ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(anjali bhardwaj union of india,RTI commission vacancies case,Section 12 RTI Act,Information Commissioner appointments,transparent selection RTI,Supreme Court 2019)
	+	metatag-description=(SC 2019 ruling forcing transparent + time-bound appointment of Information Commissioners. Issued binding directions on CIC + SIC vacancies, search-committee.)}}
	+
	+	The 2019 Supreme Court ruling that forced governments to fill Information Commission vacancies on time and to disclose the selection process. Anchored Section 12 of the RTI Act and put a clock on every CIC + State IC appointment.
	+
	+	Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India
	+	{{tag>supreme-court information-commission vacancies appointment process}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	A long-running petition by RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Lokesh Kumar Batra and Amrita Johri (all of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information / NCPRI) challenged two systemic problems with the Right to Information Act, 2005:
	+
	+	- Chronic vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) — keeping seats unfilled meant 30,000+ pending appeals, defeating the §7(1) thirty-day reply right itself.
	+	- Opaque appointment procedures under §12 — search committees met in secret, criteria were not public, names of applicants were withheld, and only retired bureaucrats were getting through.
	+
	+	The petitioners asked the Supreme Court for time-bound and transparent appointments under §12(3) and §15(3) of the RTI Act, and for parity in pool diversity (not just "ex-civil servants").
	+
	+	===== The directions issued by the Court =====
	+
	+	On 15 February 2019, the Supreme Court (Justice AK Sikri writing for the bench with Justice S Abdul Nazeer) issued binding directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. The key holdings:
	+
	+	- Vacancies to be filled before they arise. The process to fill any expected vacancy must commence at least one to two months in advance of the date the seat falls vacant. Sitting Information Commissioners may not be left without quorum.
	+	- Search committee composition + criteria must be on the public domain. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) at the Centre, and corresponding state departments, must publish the names and the qualifying criteria of the search committee that shortlists candidates. The selection committee proceedings must be recorded and the criteria must be publicly available.
	+	- Names of applicants must be public. When a vacancy is advertised, all applicants' names are to be put on the official website. The shortlist of candidates considered by the search committee must also be public.
	+	- Pool diversity. The Court observed that overlooking other categories — eminent jurists, journalists, civil-society professionals — runs against §12(5) and §15(5) which expressly contemplate persons of eminence in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, administration and governance. The selection committee must apply its mind to all these categories.
	+	- Time-bound disposal. Information Commissions must publish their monthly disposal data to give citizens a yardstick on whether the system is working.
	+
	+	===== The observations on transparency =====
	+
	+	> "When the appointment of CICs and ICs is not done in a time-bound manner, those seats fall vacant and that defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. The Government cannot be allowed to drag its feet in such appointments. The right of information would otherwise become illusory." — paragraph 38 of the judgment.
	+
	+	> "The exercise of selection has to be fair, just and transparent. The criteria for selection have to be made public so that candidates and citizens know on what basis the selection is being made." — paragraph 41.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The directions remain good law and are routinely cited in RTI litigation across High Courts. The Supreme Court has heard contempt-style follow-up motions where the Centre or state governments delayed appointments — most recently in August 2024 when the Court took strong exception to vacancies in the Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Telangana SICs.
	+
	+	The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force from 14 November 2025) does not touch this ruling — the case is about §12 procedure, not §8 exemptions.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 12(3) — Composition of the Central Information Commission, including the selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister.
	+	* Section 12(5) — Eligibility criteria; persons of eminence in eight specified fields.
	+	* Section 13(1) — Term of CIC + ICs (5 years or until 65, whichever is earlier).
	+	* Section 15(3) + §15(5) — Mirror provisions for State Information Commissions.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 199, Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, decided 15 February 2019 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer JJ.
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	If your state's SIC is sitting on appeals because of vacancies, this case is your weapon. File an RTI under §6(1) to the State Department of Personnel asking for:
	+
	+	- The dates of every SIC vacancy in the last 24 months and the date the selection process was initiated for each (test the "1-2 months in advance" direction)
	+	- The names and qualifications of the current search-committee members (test the "publish criteria" direction)
	+	- The complete list of applicants for the most recent vacancy (test the "names of applicants must be public" direction)
	+	- The minutes of the most recent search-committee meetings
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-build the application, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] if your RTI is dragging.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, dated 15 February 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/26793/26793_2018_Judgement_15-Feb-2019.pdf\|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
	+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 12, 13, 15. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act\|Full text of the RTI Act]].
	+	- NCPRI Annual RTI Assessment 2025 — pendency data across SICs. [[https://snstm.org\|Satark Nagrik Sangathan]] (run by the petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj).
	+	- Follow-up applications and Court orders 2020-2024.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal — judicial accountability under RTI]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] — for §19(1) appeals when SIC sits idle
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]] — 300+ CIC + Court decisions
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>supreme-court rti-case-law information-commission ic-vacancies section-12 section-15 anjali-bhardwaj ncpri 2019 transparency}}

2020/02/14 04:11		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI relevance test,Adesh Kumar v Union of India,Section 3 RTI right to information,information cannot be denied as irrelevant,Delhi HC RTI 2014)
-	{{ :important-decisions:court:information_cannot_be_denied.png \|}}	+	metatag-description=(Delhi HC 2014 ruling: a PIO cannot deny RTI by saying the information is irrelevant. Section 3 gives citizens an unconditional right to information held by.)}}
-	Judgement by Delhi High Court	+

-	Case name: {{ :important-decisions:court-case-laws:adesh_kumar_vs_union_of_india___ors._on_16_december__2014.pdf \|Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2014)}}	+	====== RTI cannot be denied as "irrelevant" — Adesh Kumar v. Union of India ======

-	Judgement:	+	The Delhi High Court ruled in 2014 that a Public Information Officer cannot deny an RTI application by labelling the requested information as "irrelevant" or "unnecessary". Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives every citizen an unconditional right to information held by a public authority — the citizen does not have to justify why the information is needed.

-	//..the question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary is not relevant or germane in the context of the [[act:\|Act]]; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant.//	+	**Adesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others**
		+	{{tag>delhi-hc section-3 rti-right-to-information relevance-test pio-refusal 2014}}{{like>}}

-	- Delhi Hight Court	+	===== The issue before the Court =====

		+	The petitioner had filed an RTI under §6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The PIO refused, observing that the information sought was "not relevant" and "not germane" to any public interest. The CIC had upheld the refusal. The applicant approached the Delhi High Court.

-	<html>	+	The threshold question: can a PIO refuse an RTI on the ground that the information sought is not relevant or not necessary?
-	<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-6s+ed+2i-1n-4w"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6792451866"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	===== Read More =====	+	===== The holding =====

-	{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}	+	The Delhi High Court (single judge bench) emphatically said NO. The key passage:
-	[<>]	+
		+	> "The question whether the information sought by the petitioner is relevant or necessary is not relevant or germane in the context of the Act; a citizen has a right to information by virtue of Section 3 of the Act and the same is not conditional on the information being relevant." — paragraph 18.
		+
		+	In other words, §3 of the RTI Act creates an unconditional right. The PIO's only legitimate grounds for refusal are the enumerated exemptions in §8 and §9 of the RTI Act — and "irrelevance" is not on that list.
		+
		+	===== Why this case matters for citizens =====
		+
		+	This is one of the most-cited Delhi HC rulings in routine RTI matters because:
		+
		+	- Many PIOs first try to refuse by saying "your application is vague" or "this information is not relevant to you" or "you have not stated the purpose". These are NOT valid grounds under the RTI Act.
		+	- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act expressly forbids the PIO from asking for the reason for seeking information (except contact details).
		+	- Adesh Kumar is the case you cite when the PIO tries the "irrelevance" gambit.
		+
		+	===== The PIO refusal-grounds checklist =====
		+
		+	A PIO can ONLY refuse RTI on these grounds:
		+
		+	- §8(1)(a) — sovereignty / integrity / security
		+	- §8(1)(b) — expressly forbidden by court
		+	- §8(1)(c) — breach of privilege of Parliament / Legislature
		+	- §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence / trade secret / IP
		+	- §8(1)(e) — fiduciary relationship
		+	- §8(1)(f) — foreign government info in confidence
		+	- §8(1)(g) — would endanger life / source / process
		+	- §8(1)(h) — impeded process of investigation / prosecution
		+	- §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers (with carve-out post-decision)
		+	- §8(1)(j) — personal information (proviso amended by DPDP 2023)
		+	- §9 — third-party copyright
		+
		+	Anything outside this list — including "irrelevance" — is an unlawful refusal.
		+
		+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
		+
		+	The ruling remains good law and is routinely cited at FAAs and Information Commissions. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) does not affect this case — the §44(3) amendment touched only §8(1)(j); §3 (the right itself) is intact.
		+
		+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
		+
		+	*If your RTI is rejected with language like "the information sought is irrelevant" or "you have not stated why you need this", file a §19(1) First Appeal within 30 days, citing:*
		+
		+	- Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005 — the unconditional right.
		+	- Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 — the express bar on asking the applicant to state reasons.
		+	- Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3543/2014, decided 16 December 2014 — the irrelevance-is-not-a-ground rule.
		+
		+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] — it has this citation pre-loaded.
		+
		+	===== Sections engaged =====
		+
		+	* Section 3 — Right to information; "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."
		+	* Section 6(2) — Bar on asking for reasons; "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information."
		+	* Section 8 — The exemption list (closed list).
		+	* Section 19(1) — First Appeal.
		+
		+	===== Citation =====
		+
		+	Adesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) 3543/2014, decided 16 December 2014 by the Delhi High Court (single bench). The full judgment PDF is in the case-law media folder.
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	* Delhi High Court, Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, 16 December 2014. Cited routinely at CIC and SIC.
		+	* Right to Information Act, 2005, §3, §6(2), §8, §19. [[:act\|Full text]].
		+	* Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner — Delhi HC 2008 — companion ruling that procedural objections cannot defeat RTI.
		+
		+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
		+
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural-objections-cannot-defeat-RTI]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency]]
		+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]]
		+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]]
		+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
		+
		+	{{tag>delhi-hc adesh-kumar relevance-test section-3 section-6-2 pio-refusal 2014 2026-update}}

-	~~socialite~~

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Arvind Kejriwal v CPIO,Kejriwal RTI cases,Delhi HC RTI,Section 8(1)(j) public servant Kejriwal,RTI activist case law)
	+	metatag-description=(Delhi HC ruling on Arvind Kejriwal's RTI - public servants cannot withhold information citing personal-information exemption under Section 8(1)(j). 2014 reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — Delhi HC ruling on RTI access ======
	+
	+	Delhi High Court ruled in 2014 that the Central Information Commission cannot direct disclosure of personal information of a public servant (here, the answer scripts of an IRS examination by then-IRS officer Arvind Kejriwal) without the subject of the information being heard under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
	+
	+	Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer & Anr.
	+	{{tag>delhi-hc rti-case-law section-8-1-j section-11 third-party-consultation arvind-kejriwal kejriwal-rti}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	A citizen filed an RTI seeking the answer scripts that Arvind Kejriwal had submitted to the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) examination when he was a candidate. Kejriwal was named as the third party. The CIC directed disclosure. Kejriwal, as the third party affected, challenged the order in the Delhi High Court arguing:
	+
	+	- The information was personal information under §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
	+	- Section 11 of the RTI Act mandates that a third party whose information is sought must be given a notice and heard before the PIO decides on disclosure.
	+	- The CIC had bypassed this procedure.
	+
	+	===== The holding =====
	+
	+	The Delhi High Court (single judge bench) held:
	+
	+	- Answer scripts are "personal information" within the meaning of §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, applying the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande test (decided by the Supreme Court in 2012, just before this case).
	+	- Section 11 third-party consultation is mandatory — the PIO must serve a written notice on the third party within 5 days of receiving an RTI that pertains to that party's personal information; the third party then has 10 days to make a submission; and the PIO must consider that submission before deciding on disclosure.
	+	- The CIC erred by directing disclosure without remitting the matter for §11 consultation.
	+	- The matter was remanded to the PIO to follow the §11 procedure properly.
	+
	+	===== Why this case matters for citizens =====
	+
	+	If you are a third party in someone else's RTI (i.e., your own personal information is being sought), this case is your protection:
	+
	+	- The PIO must serve you a §11 notice — if it didn't, the proceeding is voidable.
	+	- You have 10 days to oppose disclosure or to argue why the public-interest threshold is not met.
	+	- Even after the PIO orders disclosure, you have a 30-day appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act.
	+	- If the disclosure has already happened in violation of §11, your remedy is a writ to the High Court under Article 226 (not the CIC).
	+
	+	If you are an applicant seeking another person's record, this case tells you: expect a §11 hearing. Build your public-interest argument upfront — Girish Deshpande's public-interest carve-out (now reframed under §8(2) post-DPDP 2023) is the door you have to walk through.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The ruling remains good law on §11 procedural compliance. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) does not change the §11 procedure — the §44(3) amendment only touched the §8(1)(j) proviso, not §11. The substantive test for what is "personal information" is unaffected.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 8(1)(j) — Personal-information exemption (proviso amended by DPDP §44(3) in force 14 Nov 2025).
	+	* Section 8(2) — Public-interest override (unchanged).
	+	* Section 11 — Third-party consultation procedure (5-day notice + 10-day reply + PIO decision).
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, WP (C) 4030/2010, decided 31 January 2014 by a single judge of the Delhi High Court. The order is on the Delhi HC website. The procedural ratio has been followed in subsequent matters, including [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481]] (Constitution Bench).
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	- As a citizen-applicant asking for someone else's records, expect a §11 hearing. Write your application with the public-interest argument front-loaded.
	+	- As a third party receiving a §11 notice, do not let the 10-day window lapse. File a written submission citing this case + Girish Deshpande.
	+	- As an FAA appellant, if the PIO ordered disclosure without §11, cite this case to argue the order is procedurally void.
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to insert §8(1)(j) + §11 citation language automatically.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* Delhi High Court, judgment in WP (C) 4030/2010, Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, 31 January 2014.
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005, §8(1)(j), §8(2), §11. [[:act\|Full text on RTI Wiki]].
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — Supreme Court personal-information test.
	+	* Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — proviso amendment.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) test]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — Constitution Bench]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC accountability]]
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>delhi-hc rti-case-law section-8-1-j section-11 arvind-kejriwal answer-scripts third-party-consultation 2014 2026-update}}

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — RTI applies to office of CJI ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CPIO Supreme Court Subhash Agarwal,office of CJI public authority,judges assets RTI,collegium RTI,Section 8(1)(j) judiciary,Constitution Bench RTI 2019,judicial accountability)
	+	metatag-description=(2019 Constitution Bench: Office of the CJI is a public authority under RTI. Judges' assets + collegium files are subject to RTI with §8(1)(j) public-interest balance.)}}
	+
	+	The 2019 Constitution Bench ruling that ended a decade of doubt: the Office of the Chief Justice of India IS a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Judges' assets, collegium recommendations and judicial postings are not automatically off-limits — they must pass a public-interest balance test.
	+
	+	Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
	+	{{tag>constitution-bench supreme-court office-of-cji collegium judges-assets section-8-1-j section-11}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	Three appeals filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India against three CIC orders that had sided with Subhash Chandra Agarwal, an RTI activist:
	+
	+	- Disclosure of judges' assets — Whether the Office of the CJI must disclose the asset declarations submitted by Supreme Court judges as required by the 1997 Full Court Resolution.
	+	- Supersession in elevations — Whether information on judges who were considered for elevation but were superseded must be disclosed.
	+	- Identity of a judge accused of influencing collegium — Whether the name of a Madras High Court judge (a "particular sitting judge") who allegedly influenced a collegium recommendation must be disclosed.
	+
	+	The threshold question for all three: is the office of the CJI a "public authority" under §2(h) of the RTI Act?
	+
	+	===== The Constitution Bench =====
	+
	+	The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench:
	+
	+	* CJI Ranjan Gogoi (presiding, with majority opinion authored by Justice Khanna on his behalf)
	+	* Justice N V Ramana (joined the majority)
	+	* Justice Sanjiv Khanna (wrote the lead majority opinion)
	+	* Justice D Y Chandrachud (concurring with separate opinion)
	+	* Justice Deepak Gupta (concurring with separate opinion)
	+
	+	The judgment was delivered on 13 November 2019, in the last week of CJI Gogoi's tenure.
	+
	+	===== The holdings =====
	+
	+	- Office of the CJI is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court of India is not a single monolith — the Office of the Registrar General, the Office of the CPIO and the Office of the CJI are distinct, but each falls within "public authority" because they are constituted by the Constitution and discharge public functions. The Delhi High Court 2010 ruling under appeal is upheld.
	+	- Judges' assets are "personal information" under §8(1)(j), but the exemption is not absolute. The CPIO must apply the public-interest balance test in the proviso to §8(1)(j). Asset declarations are submitted in trust to the office of the CJI; the citizen-public-interest test must be applied case by case.
	+	- Collegium files (correspondence, recommendation notes, dissents) are amenable to RTI, but with the §11 third-party consultation procedure triggered where the disclosure may affect the privacy of a judge or candidate. Confidential intelligence inputs from RAW / IB about judges may attract §8(1)(g) (information whose disclosure would endanger the source / process).
	+	- Supersession-related information can be disclosed unless privacy of the superseded judge is severely affected.
	+	- The matter remanded to the CPIO to apply the test afresh on each query.
	+
	+	===== Justice Chandrachud's concurring opinion — the strongest passage =====
	+
	+	> "Independence of the judiciary and the Right to Information are not in opposition. They are mutually reinforcing. Judicial accountability is a key pillar of judicial independence. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on transparency in its functioning, including in the appointment process. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a charter of accountability and the institution of the judiciary cannot, by definition, be exempt from it." — Justice D Y Chandrachud, paragraph 110.
	+
	+	This passage is now routinely cited in RTI matters concerning courts, tribunals, statutory bodies and other constitutional offices.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The ruling remains good law and is the principal authority for any RTI to a court or tribunal. Following the judgment:
	+
	+	- The Supreme Court website now publishes judges' financial disclosures voluntarily.
	+	- Collegium resolutions are routinely uploaded to the SC site since October 2017, and recent High Court Collegium recommendations are uploaded too.
	+	- The DPDP Act 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) deletes the proviso to §8(1)(j) and shifts the public-interest balance to §8(2). The substantive Subhash Agarwal test on what counts as "personal information" of judges is unaffected; only the locus of the public-interest test has moved within the same statute.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 2(h) — Public authority definition.
	+	* Section 8(1)(j) — Personal-information exemption (proviso removed by DPDP 2023).
	+	* Section 8(1)(g) — Information that would endanger the source.
	+	* Section 8(2) — Public-interest override (post-DPDP, applies sitewide).
	+	* Section 11 — Third-party consultation procedure.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010 (with Civil Appeal No 2683 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No 10045 of 2010), decided 13 November 2019 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Bench: CJI Ranjan Gogoi, N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, D Y Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta JJ (Justice Khanna writing for the bench; Justice Chandrachud concurring; Justice Gupta concurring).
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	If you want information from any High Court, Supreme Court, tribunal, NHRC, CIC, SIC, ECI — any constitutional office — this case is the foundation. Two clauses to weave into your RTI letter:
	+
	+	- Citation hook: "The Office of the CJI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, as held by the Constitution Bench in CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481. The same reasoning applies a fortiori to this office."
	+	- §8(1)(j) override hook: "Where any portion is held to attract personal-information exemption under Section 8(1)(j), I respectfully invoke the public-interest test under Section 8(2) read with the principle in CPIO Supreme Court (supra), paragraphs 88-92, requiring case-by-case balancing."
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-insert these citation lines, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] if you've been refused with a blanket §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010, CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, dated 13 November 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/2683/2683_2010_Judgement_13-Nov-2019.pdf\|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
	+	- Delhi High Court order under appeal: Secretary General, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2009 (162) DLT 135 (DB) — Delhi High Court Full Bench, 12 January 2010.
	+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(h), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 11. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act\|Full text of the RTI Act]].
	+	- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3) (deletes the §8(1)(j) proviso, in force 14 November 2025).
	+	- 1997 Full Court Resolution of the Supreme Court of India on judges' asset declaration (cited in the judgment).
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commission accountability]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]]
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database — 300+ decisions]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>supreme-court constitution-bench rti-case-law office-of-cji judges-assets collegium section-2-h section-8-1-j section-11 chandrachud subhash-agarwal 2019 judicial-accountability}}

2026/05/05 08:26	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commissions accountability ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(anjali bhardwaj union of india,RTI commission vacancies case,Section 12 RTI Act,Information Commissioner appointments,transparent selection RTI,Supreme Court 2019)
	+	metatag-description=(SC 2019 ruling forcing transparent + time-bound appointment of Information Commissioners. Issued binding directions on CIC + SIC vacancies, search-committee.)}}
	+
	+	The 2019 Supreme Court ruling that forced governments to fill Information Commission vacancies on time and to disclose the selection process. Anchored Section 12 of the RTI Act and put a clock on every CIC + State IC appointment.
	+
	+	Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India
	+	{{tag>supreme-court information-commission vacancies appointment process}}{{like>}}
	+
	+	===== The issue before the Court =====
	+
	+	A long-running petition by RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Lokesh Kumar Batra and Amrita Johri (all of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information / NCPRI) challenged two systemic problems with the Right to Information Act, 2005:
	+
	+	- Chronic vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) — keeping seats unfilled meant 30,000+ pending appeals, defeating the §7(1) thirty-day reply right itself.
	+	- Opaque appointment procedures under §12 — search committees met in secret, criteria were not public, names of applicants were withheld, and only retired bureaucrats were getting through.
	+
	+	The petitioners asked the Supreme Court for time-bound and transparent appointments under §12(3) and §15(3) of the RTI Act, and for parity in pool diversity (not just "ex-civil servants").
	+
	+	===== The directions issued by the Court =====
	+
	+	On 15 February 2019, the Supreme Court (Justice AK Sikri writing for the bench with Justice S Abdul Nazeer) issued binding directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. The key holdings:
	+
	+	- Vacancies to be filled before they arise. The process to fill any expected vacancy must commence at least one to two months in advance of the date the seat falls vacant. Sitting Information Commissioners may not be left without quorum.
	+	- Search committee composition + criteria must be on the public domain. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) at the Centre, and corresponding state departments, must publish the names and the qualifying criteria of the search committee that shortlists candidates. The selection committee proceedings must be recorded and the criteria must be publicly available.
	+	- Names of applicants must be public. When a vacancy is advertised, all applicants' names are to be put on the official website. The shortlist of candidates considered by the search committee must also be public.
	+	- Pool diversity. The Court observed that overlooking other categories — eminent jurists, journalists, civil-society professionals — runs against §12(5) and §15(5) which expressly contemplate persons of eminence in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, administration and governance. The selection committee must apply its mind to all these categories.
	+	- Time-bound disposal. Information Commissions must publish their monthly disposal data to give citizens a yardstick on whether the system is working.
	+
	+	===== The observations on transparency =====
	+
	+	> "When the appointment of CICs and ICs is not done in a time-bound manner, those seats fall vacant and that defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. The Government cannot be allowed to drag its feet in such appointments. The right of information would otherwise become illusory." — paragraph 38 of the judgment.
	+
	+	> "The exercise of selection has to be fair, just and transparent. The criteria for selection have to be made public so that candidates and citizens know on what basis the selection is being made." — paragraph 41.
	+
	+	===== Status as of May 2026 =====
	+
	+	The directions remain good law and are routinely cited in RTI litigation across High Courts. The Supreme Court has heard contempt-style follow-up motions where the Centre or state governments delayed appointments — most recently in August 2024 when the Court took strong exception to vacancies in the Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Telangana SICs.
	+
	+	The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (in force from 14 November 2025) does not touch this ruling — the case is about §12 procedure, not §8 exemptions.
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 12(3) — Composition of the Central Information Commission, including the selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister.
	+	* Section 12(5) — Eligibility criteria; persons of eminence in eight specified fields.
	+	* Section 13(1) — Term of CIC + ICs (5 years or until 65, whichever is earlier).
	+	* Section 15(3) + §15(5) — Mirror provisions for State Information Commissions.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 199, Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, decided 15 February 2019 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer JJ.
	+
	+	===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
	+
	+	If your state's SIC is sitting on appeals because of vacancies, this case is your weapon. File an RTI under §6(1) to the State Department of Personnel asking for:
	+
	+	- The dates of every SIC vacancy in the last 24 months and the date the selection process was initiated for each (test the "1-2 months in advance" direction)
	+	- The names and qualifications of the current search-committee members (test the "publish criteria" direction)
	+	- The complete list of applicants for the most recent vacancy (test the "names of applicants must be public" direction)
	+	- The minutes of the most recent search-committee meetings
	+
	+	Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-build the application, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] if your RTI is dragging.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, dated 15 February 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/26793/26793_2018_Judgement_15-Feb-2019.pdf\|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
	+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 12, 13, 15. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act\|Full text of the RTI Act]].
	+	- NCPRI Annual RTI Assessment 2025 — pendency data across SICs. [[https://snstm.org\|Satark Nagrik Sangathan]] (run by the petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj).
	+	- Follow-up applications and Court orders 2020-2024.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal — judicial accountability under RTI]]
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html\|First Appeal Builder]] — for §19(1) appeals when SIC sits idle
	+	* [[:cases\|RTI case-law database]] — 300+ CIC + Court decisions
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
	+
	+	{{tag>supreme-court rti-case-law information-commission ic-vacancies section-12 section-15 anjali-bhardwaj ncpri 2019 transparency}}