Right to Information Wiki

RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

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

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

NA / conversion-fee records — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(NA / conversion-fee records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,NA conversion,Delhi HC,land use,§4)&metatag-description=(Non-Agricultural [NA] conversion fee rates, computation and approvals are public records — §4[1][b]. NA conversion fees + computation: §4(1)(b) proactive.)}}
	+
	+	====== NA / conversion-fee records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Non-Agricultural [NA] conversion fee rates, computation and approvals are public records — §4[1][b]. NA conversion fees + computation: §4(1)(b) proactive.
	+
	+	//NA conversion fees + computation: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Land owner \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Municipal authority / Revenue \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Non-Agricultural (NA) conversion fee rates, computation and approvals are public records — §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Non-Agricultural (NA) conversion fee rates, formula, application status and granted permissions are administrative records with significant public-interest disclosure. §4(1)(b)(iv) (norms for discharge of functions) requires proactive publication.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NA conversion, Delhi HC, land use, §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/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+	* [[/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)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-dda-records-2019\|DDA housing records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 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=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-4 section-7}}

Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs,Various High Courts RTI,RTI §28,RTI §6,RTI §7,State Rules,§28,ultra vires,fees,word limit)&metatag-description=(State RTI Rules that impose excessive fees or form restrictions are ultra vires the Act. State RTI rules imposing excessive fees, word limits, or form restrictions.)}}
	+
	+	====== Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Various High Courts · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//State RTI rules imposing excessive fees, word limits, or form restrictions beyond the Act are ultra vires.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Various High Courts \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various RTI activists \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Governments \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §28, §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	State RTI Rules that impose excessive fees or form restrictions are ultra vires the Act.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	While States are empowered under §28 to make Rules, these cannot impose restrictions inconsistent with the Act — e.g., word limits on applications, excessive fees, or mandatory forms that deter genuine applicants.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	State Rules, §28, ultra vires, fees, word limit
	+
	+	===== 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/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-limitation-whole-india-2019\|RTI Act 2019 Amendment — Commissioner terms]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All Various High Courts rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=28\|All RTI cases turning on §28]]
	+	* [[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-28 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 12:14	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}}

Tribal land records RTI — Mizoram HC 2024

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Tribal land records RTI — Mizoram HC 2024,High Court of Mizoram at Aizawl RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,Mizoram,tribal land,village council,section 7(5),BPL)&metatag-description=(Village Council land-allotment records are public authority records; BPL applicant exempt from fee. VC allotment records are accessible; BPL fee exemption is.)}}
	+
	+	====== Tribal land records RTI — Mizoram HC 2024 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Mizoram at Aizawl · 2024-05-22 · WP(C) 98/2023
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Village Council land-allotment records are public authority records; BPL applicant exempt from fee. VC allotment records are accessible; BPL fee exemption is.
	+
	+	//VC allotment records are accessible; BPL fee exemption is absolute.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Mizoram at Aizawl \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-05-22 \|
	+	^ Citation \| WP(C) 98/2023 \|
	+	^ Bench \| M, i, c, h, a, e, l, , Z, o, t, h, a, n, k, h, u, m, a, , J \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Lalhmingthangi \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Mizoram Revenue Dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(1), §7(5) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Village Council land-allotment records are public authority records; BPL applicant exempt from fee.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Village Council allotment registers (Settlement Certificates, Periodic Patta) are records held by a public authority under the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953. §7(5) fee exemption for BPL applicants is automatic on proof of BPL status and no additional documentation can be demanded.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Mizoram, tribal land, village council, section 7(5), BPL
	+
	+	===== 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/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-chhattisgarh-rti-tribal-welfare-2022\|Tribal welfare fund records — Chhattisgarh SIC]] (SIC-CG 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MZ\|All High Court of Mizoram at Aizawl 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]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/placeholder-hc-mz-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-mz section-6 section-7}}

School transfer certificate records — CIC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(School transfer certificate records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,transfer certificate,school,CIC)&metatag-description=(Aided school's transfer-certificate, character-certificate and migration records are public records; §6[3] transfer if wrong authority.)}}
	+
	+	====== School transfer certificate records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Aided school's transfer-certificate, character-certificate and migration records are public records; §6[3] transfer if wrong authority.
	+
	+	//Aided school records (TC/CC/migration) disclosable to student/parent under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Parent / ex-student \|
	+	^ Respondent \| School administration \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Aided school's transfer-certificate, character-certificate and migration records are public records; §6(3) transfer if wrong authority.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A government or government-aided school is a public authority. Transfer Certificate, Character Certificate and Migration Certificate records of a student are disclosable to the student or parent under RTI. Non-aided private schools fall outside §2(h) unless substantial State financing is demonstrable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	transfer certificate, school, 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-delhi-rti-disability-certificate-2022\|Disability certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-private-school-rti-2019\|Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+
	+	===== 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}}

Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

Excessive fee calculation — §7(3) — CIC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

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 12:14	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}}

Medical college admissions — SC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Medical college admissions — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,MCI,NMC,medical admissions,§2(h),NEET)&metatag-description=(MCI/NMC is a public authority; medical-college seat matrix, fee structure and NEET counselling data disclosable. //MCI/NMC = §2(h) public authority; seat matrix,.)}}
	+
	+	====== Medical college admissions — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	MCI/NMC is a public authority; medical-college seat matrix, fee structure and NEET counselling data disclosable. //MCI/NMC = §2(h) public authority; seat matrix,.
	+
	+	//MCI/NMC = §2(h) public authority; seat matrix, fees, counselling mechanics all disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MCI / NMC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MCI/NMC is a public authority; medical-college seat matrix, fee structure and NEET counselling data disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Medical Council of India (now replaced by National Medical Commission) is a statutory body and public authority under §2(h). Aggregate admission data — seat matrix by institution, NEET counselling rounds, fee structure, recognition status — is §4 material.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	MCI, NMC, medical admissions, §2(h), NEET
	+
	+	===== 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-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-aiims-pgi-2020\|AIIMS / PGI medical records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== 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=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-sc section-2 section-4}}

Disability certificate records — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Disability certificate records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,disability certificate,RPwD 2016,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Own disability-certificate application, medical evaluation, and certificate-grant/rejection file — fully disclosable to the applicant.)}}
	+
	+	====== Disability certificate records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	Own disability-certificate application, medical evaluation, and certificate-grant/rejection file — fully disclosable to the applicant.
	+
	+	//Own disability-certificate file: full access; §8(1)(j) does not apply to data subject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicant for disability certificate \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Medical authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Own disability-certificate application, medical evaluation, and certificate-grant/rejection file — fully disclosable to the applicant.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An applicant for a disability certificate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is entitled to the complete file — medical-board evaluation, percentage-calculation sheet, grant/rejection order. §8(1)(j) cannot be invoked against the data subject themselves.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	disability certificate, RPwD 2016, 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/cic-rti-ptc-transfer-certificate-2020\|School transfer certificate records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-caste-validity-certificate-2020\|Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-pwd-accessible-formats-2021\|RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+	* [[/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 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}}

MP Lok Seva Guarantee interaction — MP SIC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(MP Lok Seva Guarantee interaction — MP SIC,Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,Lok Seva Guarantee,MP,§4)&metatag-description=(Lok Seva Guarantee Act 2010 records — service-request status, reasons for delay — are §4 material. MP Lok Seva Guarantee scheme records: §4 proactive disclosure;.)}}
	+
	+	====== MP Lok Seva Guarantee interaction — MP SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MP Lok Seva Guarantee scheme records: §4 proactive disclosure; overlaps with RTI for citizen benefit.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State department \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Lok Seva Guarantee Act 2010 records — service-request status, reasons for delay — are §4 material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	MP Lok Seva Guarantee Act 2010 service-request records — application status, timeline compliance, reasons for delay, and refund of fee where service not delivered in time — are §4(1)(b) public-authority records. RTI is a supplementary route where LSG tracking is incomplete.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Lok Seva Guarantee, MP, §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/sc-rti-lok-pal-public-authority-2024\|Lok Pal under RTI — SC]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-passport-seva-2021\|Passport Seva records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-lok-sabha-mp-salary-2020\|MP salary + allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-railway-ticket-refund-2020\|Railway refund / ticketing records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-MP\|All Madhya Pradesh State 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-sic-mp section-4 section-7}}

PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

Board-examination records — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC,High Court of Karnataka RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,BMTC,Karnataka HC,tender,§8(1)(d))&metatag-description=(BMTC is a public authority; post-award tender summary disclosable; losing bidders' cost-sheets §8[1][d]. BMTC = §2(h); post-award tender summary OK; losing-bidder.)}}
	+
	+	====== BMTC tender records — Karnataka HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Karnataka · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	BMTC is a public authority; post-award tender summary disclosable; losing bidders' cost-sheets §8[1][d]. BMTC = §2(h); post-award tender summary OK; losing-bidder.
	+
	+	//BMTC = §2(h); post-award tender summary OK; losing-bidder commercials §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Karnataka \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Unsuccessful bidder \|
	+	^ Respondent \| BMTC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	BMTC is a public authority; post-award tender summary disclosable; losing bidders' cost-sheets §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) is a Karnataka government undertaking and public authority under §2(h). Post-award tender award value, successful bidder name, and contract terms are disclosable. Losing bidders' cost-sheets and proprietary methodologies are §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BMTC, Karnataka HC, tender, §8(1)(d)
	+
	+	===== 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-railway-tender-commercial-2022\|Railway tender awards — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-tripura-rti-civil-works-2022\|Civil works contract records — Tripura HC]] (HC-TR 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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]]
	+
	+	<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}}

§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §11,§11,40 days,timeline,third party,CIC)&metatag-description=(CIC consistently enforces 40-day total timeline for §11-triggered RTIs [30 days + 10 days third-party consultation]. §11-triggered RTIs: 30 + 10 = 40-day total.)}}
	+
	+	====== §11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	CIC consistently enforces 40-day total timeline for §11-triggered RTIs [30 days + 10 days third-party consultation]. §11-triggered RTIs: 30 + 10 = 40-day total.
	+
	+	//§11-triggered RTIs: 30 + 10 = 40-day total. Exceeding it without reasons attracts §20.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §11 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC consistently enforces 40-day total timeline for §11-triggered RTIs (30 days + 10 days third-party consultation).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	For a request that triggers §11 third-party consultation, the total disposal timeline is 40 days (30 standard + 10 for third-party representation). PIOs exceeding this without written justification face §20 liability.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§11, 40 days, timeline, third party, 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/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/sc-rti-section-6-3-transfer-rule-2022\|§6(3) transfer — 5-day rule strict construction — SC]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — 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=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[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-7 section-11}}

Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,contractor,Delhi HC,§2(f),§11)&metatag-description=(Records in possession of a public authority pertaining to a private contractor are 'information' under §2[f]; contractor is a third party under §11.)}}
	+
	+	====== Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Contractor records held by a public authority are §2(f) information; disclose subject to §11 notice.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Records in possession of a public authority pertaining to a private contractor are 'information' under §2(f); contractor is a third party under §11.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of a private contractor in the possession of a public authority — tender bids, performance reports, payment schedules — are 'information' under §2(f). The contractor is a 'third party' under §11, and §11 notice is required before disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	contractor, Delhi HC, §2(f), §11
	+
	+	===== 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-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-tripura-rti-civil-works-2022\|Civil works contract records — Tripura HC]] (HC-TR 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-third-party-fee-bearing-2019\|§11 third-party cost-bearing — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-smart-city-project-2021\|Smart-city project details — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== 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}}

Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice

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

2026/05/03 12:14	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}}

UGC foreign-university approvals — CIC 2025

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(UGC foreign-university approvals — CIC 2025,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,UGC,foreign university,section 4(1)(b),2023 regulations,education)&metatag-description=(UGC [Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India] Regulations, 2023 approvals and rejections are disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== UGC foreign-university approvals — CIC 2025 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2025-01-15 · CIC/UGC/A/2025/00123
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+	UGC [Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India] Regulations, 2023 approvals and rejections are disclosable.
	+
	+	//Foreign-university India-campus approvals are §4(1)(b).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2025-01-15 \|
	+	^ Citation \| CIC/UGC/A/2025/00123 \|
	+	^ Bench \| S, a, r, o, j, , P, u, n, h, a, n, i, , I, C \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Higher Education Watch \|
	+	^ Respondent \| UGC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	UGC (Setting up and Operation of Campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions in India) Regulations, 2023 approvals and rejections are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Approvals granted to foreign higher educational institutions to set up campuses in India under the 2023 UGC Regulations — including applicant-wise approval/rejection, course approvals, and fee commitments — are educational-policy records under §4(1)(b). Commercial sensitivity of applicant financials attracts limited §8(1)(d) redaction only.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	UGC, foreign university, section 4(1)(b), 2023 regulations, 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/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/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/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/hc-delhi-rti-ayush-approvals-2024\|Ayush ministry drug approvals — 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=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-cic-ugc-foreign-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-cic section-4 section-8}}

Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Anil Mehrotra, §7(3), excessive fee, CIC)
	+	metatag-description=(Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)
	+	metatag-title=(Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — 2014 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Anil Mehrotra v. CIC — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
	+	Anil Mehrotra v. CIC (Central Information Commission, 2014-12-08) //CIC/AT/A/2014/000567// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 7(3). Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable. Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1).
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	Excessive fee demand by PIO is appealable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Demand by PIO of fees exceeding the rates prescribed under the relevant RTI Rules is itself a substantive ground of First Appeal under §19(1). Abuse can attract §20(1) penalty.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 7(3)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	§7(3) limits fee to prescribed rates; abuse triggers §19 / §20.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: CIC/AT/A/2014/000567
	+	* Court: Central Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2014-12-08
	+	* Outcome: allowed
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: CIC/AT/A/2014/000567
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:search\|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
	+	* [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base\|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
	+	* [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings\|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:pio-high-court-rulings\|High Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|Landmark CIC decisions]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases cic 2014}}

Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. RPO Delhi

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

2026/05/03 12:14	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RPO, §4, Subhash Agarwal, passport, proactive disclosure)
	+	metatag-description=(RPO held to §4 proactive-disclosure obligation. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Information reference.)
	+	metatag-title=(Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. RPO Delhi — 2019 — RTI case law)}}
	+	====== Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. RPO Delhi ======
	+
	+	Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. RPO Delhi (Central Information Commission, 2019-08-07) //CIC/MEA/A/2019/139254// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 4, 7(1). RPO held to §4 proactive-disclosure obligation. Regional Passport Office is bound by §4(1)(b) proactive-disclosure obligations regarding service standards, fee structure and PIO/FAA contact information.
	+
	+	===== Holding =====
	+
	+	RPO held to §4 proactive-disclosure obligation.
	+
	+	===== Ratio =====
	+
	+	Regional Passport Office is bound by §4(1)(b) proactive-disclosure obligations regarding service standards, fee structure and PIO/FAA contact information. Failure to publish citizen-charter compliance attracts §20(1) consequences.
	+
	+	===== Section(s) applied =====
	+
	+	* Section 4
	+	* Section 7(1)
	+
	+	===== Practitioner takeaway =====
	+
	+	Citizen Charter cited as minimum service standard; deemed refusal triggered.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	* Citation: CIC/MEA/A/2019/139254
	+	* Court: Central Information Commission
	+	* Date: 2019-08-07
	+	* Outcome: allowed
	+	* Reporter / Cause-list: CIC/MEA/A/2019/139254
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:cases:search\|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
	+	* [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base\|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
	+	* [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings\|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:pio-high-court-rulings\|High Court RTI rulings]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|Landmark CIC decisions]]
	+	* [[:act\|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases cic 2019}}