Right to Information Wiki

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

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:10:32 +0000

2018/06/05 01:21		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Grounds for Rejection ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti grounds for rejection,section 8 rti exemptions,rti section 8(1),ten grounds rti,rti refusal valid grounds,rti rejection reasons,section 9 rti,section 11 rti,section 24 rti,rti exempt information,dpdp amendment rti 2025,how rti gets rejected,rti appeal section 19)&metatag-description=(All 10 valid grounds for RTI rejection under Section 8(1) — DPDP-2025 amended privacy clause, fiduciary, security, commercial. Counter-strategies for each.)}}
-	{{tag>Rejection,exemption,act}}	+
-	{{ :explanations:rejection.jpg \|}}	+
-	It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	**Grounds of Rejection of RTI**	+	====== RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals ======
-	There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:	+	**Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 contains ten grounds on which a Public Information Officer may reject a request — from national security to personal information. After the DPDP 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j), the public-interest override moved to Section 8(2). Every rejection must cite a specific sub-clause with factual nexus under Section 7(8)(i).**
-	* The organisation is not a Public authority - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not substantially financed or controlled by the Government.	+
-	* What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’	+
-	===== Some examples to explain the above: =====	+

-	<note>‘Why have I not got a ration card?’ is not asking for information; but ‘I want the progress of my file relating to my application for a ration card’ is asking information.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-grounds-for-rejection.png?direct&1200 \|RTI grounds for rejection — RTI Wiki }}

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

-	‘Why have I not got admission?’ is not asking for information, whereas ‘I want the cut-off marks at which admission was granted’ is asking for information. However, abiding by the spirit of Section 5(3), the PIO should help to reframe such queries.</note>	+	===== Key answer — read this first =====
-	* The information asked for falls in the exemptions of [[act:\|Section 8(1)]] or under Section 9 applies. Section 9 bars giving information which would violate private party copyright.	+
-	* Providing extracts from the records is required to be done as per Section 2(j)(ii) unless it would require too much time. If giving the information would require too much of the resource of the Public authority, it cannot refuse to give the information.	+
-	* If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant.	+

-	<html>	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	An RTI request may be refused only on these statutory grounds:
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution, in which case, the request for information, can be denied.	+

-	There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand, if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the PIO should do this.	+	* Section 8(1) — the ten specific exemptions in clauses (a) to (j).
-	<html>	+	* Section 9 — where disclosure would infringe copyright held by someone other than the State.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	* Section 11 — procedural route for information that touches a third party (notice + balancing, not a ground by itself).
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	* Section 24 — the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule, with carve-outs for corruption and human-rights allegations.
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.	+

-	===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====	+	Anything else is an invalid refusal. You have 30 days to file a [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal under §19(1)]]. PIOs who refuse without a valid ground invite a **penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 under Section 20**.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	**//(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;//**	+

-	The PIO must explain how the disclosure of information is likely to ‘prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, or the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence’. If no specific reasoning is given to justify denial, the information must be provided. It must be observed that the law does not exempt files or information labelled ‘confidential’ as exempt. Classification as ‘confidential’ is an internal procedure and cannot be used to deny information, since the RTI Act has exempted thisthis category.	+	The DPDP update (14 Nov 2025): Section 8(1)(j) was amended by §44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public-interest override that used to sit inside clause (j) has been removed; the override now operates only via Section 8(2). See the [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
		+	</WRAP>

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

-	//(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;//	+	<WRAP center round round 95%>
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific, economic interests, foreign relations, incitement of offence. [[#a-sovereignty-integrity-security\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:b-court.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(b) — Information expressly forbidden by a court / tribunal, or whose disclosure would be contempt. [[#b-court-forbidden-disclosure\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(c) — Breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. [[#c-parliamentlegislature-privilege\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence, trade secrets, IP — where disclosure harms a third party's competitive position. [[#d-commercial-confidence\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(e) — Information available in a fiduciary relationship. [[#e-fiduciary-relationship\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(f) — Information received in confidence from a foreign government. [[#f-foreign-government-confidence\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(g) — Endangerment of life / physical safety, or identity of a confidential source. [[#g-life-and-safety\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(h) — Impedes investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. [[#h-investigation-and-prosecution\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and deliberations (time-bounded). [[#i-cabinet-papers\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(j) — Personal information / unwarranted invasion of privacy. **Amended 2025. [[#j-personal-information-amended-2025\|Detail →]] \|**
		+	</WRAP>

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

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

-	//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//	+	The diagram is the legal order of analysis. **A ground under §8(1) is never the first gate. A PIO must first establish that the body is a public authority and that the request is for "information" as defined; then apply §7(9) for form, not refusal; only then reach §8(1) / §9 / §24 and the §8(2) override and §10 severability**.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	This will primarily apply where there is a legal stipulation to present some information like a report to Parliament or the Legislature. This provision will also apply when a specific order has been given by the Legislature to avoid disclosing some information in public domain or to prohibit some proceedings of the Parliament or Legislature from being made public.	+

-	There is a common practice of governments appointing Commissions of Inquiry and often not making the reports public. Since the report has not been placed before Parliament can it be given in response to an RTI application?	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	If you've just received a refusal letter, skip to [[#non-grounds-what-cannot-refuse-an-rti\|non-grounds]] and [[#got-refused-the-30-day-appeal-path\|the appeal path]] below.

-	As per Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, “The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State the report, if any, of the commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a Memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the commission to the appropriate Government.”	+	If you're a PIO or FAA, use the per-clause detail below — each has statutory text, plain-English meaning, case citations, and a PIO takeaway.
		+	</WRAP>

-	If it has not been placed within six months before the Parliament, or State Legislature, the breach of privilege has already occurred since the government has not abided by the provision of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It cannot then be claimed that giving the report to the applicant will cause a breach of privilege since it has already been breached by the holder of the report.	+	===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====

-	Another important point which must be noted is that if some information is denied to Legislature, this exemption does not say it should not be given to a citizen. There is an additional view at this juncture.	+	==== Gate 1 — Is the body a public authority? ====

-	----	+	If the body is not a [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] under §2(h), the RTI Act does not apply. A cooperative society, private company, or trust not [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] or controlled by the government is outside scope.

-	//(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	Authority. //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82 — substantial-financing test. See also [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings\|Kerala HC RTI rulings]] for the HC-level application.

-	<html>	+	==== Gate 2 — Is the request for "information" as defined? ====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	To qualify for this exemption, it must be established that it is ‘commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property’. Most importantly, it must be shown that the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’. This would mean if particular information is given by the ‘third party’ which can be identified as a trade secret or commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm its competitive position, then such information could be denied to the applicant. This section does not envisage denial of information such as tender bids, specifications or guarantees are given by bidders to the public authorities. The PIO must examine and ensure whether information denied qualifies this test of damage to third party likely to be caused by disclosure.	+

-	As an example, if a Company is negotiating with some other customers for some orders and discloses this to the Public authority, it may be claimed that it is information given in commercial confidence and disclosing this information could damage its competitive position. Similarly, if a formula/ formulation is disclosed by a company, its disclosure could be exempted since disclosure could harm its competitive position. If there is no possibility of competition, the exemption cannot be claimed under this clause.	+	Section 2(f) defines "information" as material in any form that exists on record. The PIO is not obliged to answer questions, interpret law, or create fresh analysis.

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

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

-	//(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	==== Gate 3 — §7(9) governs form, not refusal ====

-	<html>	+	Section 7(9) lets the PIO change the form in which information is provided — not refuse it. Where collation would "disproportionately divert resources," the PIO may offer inspection + copies of identified pages. Outright refusal under §7(9) is impermissible.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or	+

-	(4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer.”34	+	See [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]] and [[:act:section-7\|Section 7 — reply deadline and form]].
-	The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.	+

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

-	Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.	+	==== 8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security ====

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

-	//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	Plain English. For genuine national-security or strategic-harm cases — not for documents stamped "Confidential."
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	It is likely that this provision could be used to refuse most information provided by a foreign Government unless it has been released in the Public domain. Effectively, this means that most information received from a foreign government is unlikely to be given. This is the only provision where the mere claim of information having been received in confidence has been given exemption in this law.	+

-	----	+	Key caveat. An internal "Secret" or "Confidential" marking is not a ground. The PIO must show specific harm disclosure would cause. A blanket citation of §8(1)(a) without a harm-test fails on appeal.

-	**//(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;//**	+	**Case law.**

-	The danger to life or physical safety must be a reasonable probability, not a mere imagination. This clause would be invoked when somebody has given information about a wrongdoing or acted as a whistleblower, and disclosure of his identity would endanger him. However, it should entail a situation where some threat to the source must be a reasonable probability. This cannot be used to deny information about examiners, names of selectors or interviewers, or remarks by superior officers against their juniors. This would be the result of a hyperactive apprehension rather than a real threat. There is an additional view at this juncture.	+	* //S.P. Gupta v. UoI//, AIR 1982 SC 149 — classified files do not enjoy automatic immunity; the harm-test applies.

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

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

-	<html>	+	{{ :icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 }}
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:	+
-	- The investigation is not complete, and it can be shown that releasing the information could impede the process of investigation. This provision does not say that when an investigation is ongoing, information regarding it should not be provided. Hence, the PIO must consider whether there is a reasonable probability of the investigation being impeded if the information is provided. Similarly, when an investigation report is already submitted, it cannot be claimed that the process of investigation will be impeded. After this, only if there is any probability of somebody being apprehended or prosecuted, then it has to be established that the apprehension or prosecution will be impeded.	+
-	- If it is shown and established that releasing the information will result in a situation which will impede apprehending the charged persons.	+
-	- Though the investigation and apprehension of offenders may be over, releasing the information would impede the process of prosecuting the offenders. If an investigation is over and no offender is likely to be apprehended or prosecuted, the information cannot be withheld.36 Also, the mere fact that release of some information from the records may lead to a weakening of the prosecution case cannot be advanced as a reason to deny information, since this would imply that the truth on records is not being revealed.	+

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

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

-	<html>	+	Common PIO error. Citing "case pending in court" as a §8(1)(b) ground. Sub-judice alone is insufficient.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	This provision is often misunderstood as being a complete bar on providing information under Right to Information about cabinet papers and the cabinet deliberations. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, it places an obligation on the government to make public the material on the basis of which the decision has been taken. This means that the government must make the basis of taking the decisions public on its own. For example, once a bill is presented in Parliament or Legislature, the matter relating to the purpose of the deliberations and cabinet related file notings is clearly complete and over.	+

-	This provision requires that the government places before people it's deliberations and reasoning for deciding to frame a law or policy. This provision reiterates the provisions of Section 4(1):	+	Case law.

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

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

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

-	//(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:**	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
-	Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//	+	Statutory text. //Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	Plain English. Used primarily where a statute requires information (a report) to be laid before the Legislature, or where the Legislature has specifically ordered non-disclosure.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	To qualify for this exemption, it must be personal information. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it suggests that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)	+
-	(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.	+
-	The information requested, may be denied under section 8(1)(j), under the following two circumstances –	+

-	a) Where the information requested is personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or	+	A subtle point — Commission of Inquiry reports. Under Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, a government must lay the report before the Legislature within 6 months. If it fails to do so, the breach of privilege has already occurred — §8(1)(c) cannot then be used to shield the report from an RTI applicant.

-	b) Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.	+	==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence ====

-	If the information is personal information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public authority as a consequence of a public activity. Generally, most of the information in public records arises from a public activity.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?32 }}

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

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

-	<WRAP group>	+	What is NOT commercial confidence. Tender bid particulars, project specifications, performance guarantees by a winning bidder to a public authority are not automatic trade secrets. Technical evaluation minutes post-award are disclosable — the evaluation is a public-authority act. See [[:pio-tender-contract-rti\|PIO Framework — tender and contract RTI]] and //Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2015).
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	Applying for a job, ration card or passport are examples of public activity. However, there may be some personal information which may be with public authorities which is not a consequence of a public activity, eg. Medical records, or transactions with a public sector bank. Similarly, a public authority may come into possession of some information during a raid or seizure which may have no relationship to any public activity.	+

-	Even if the information has arisen by a public activity, it could still be exempt if disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual.	+	Case law.

		+	* //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
		+	* //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — RBI's own regulatory records are disclosable; §8(1)(d) can't shield them.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information available to a person in his [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|fiduciary relationship]], unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	<html>	+	Plain English. A fiduciary relationship requires choice + trust + benefit of the provider — lawyer / client, doctor / patient, banker / customer, trustee / beneficiary.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- wiki 300 bottom -->	+	What is NOT fiduciary.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"	+	* Information given to fulfil a statutory requirement (income-tax return, passport application, job application) — no choice, no fiduciary.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	* Employee service records held by the employer — regulatory, not fiduciary.
-	data-ad-slot="4562457588"></ins>	+	* Information the regulator holds about a regulated entity — not fiduciary.
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	Case law.
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — evaluated answer scripts are not fiduciary; scores are disclosable.
		+	* //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — the regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary.
		+	* //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781 — examiner identity and model answers are fiduciary.
		+
		+	Deep dive. [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary relationship]].
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(f) — Foreign government confidence ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information received in confidence from foreign government.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. The only clause where a mere claim of "received in confidence" triggers exemption. Most information received from a foreign government is therefore unlikely to be given unless it has already been released into the public domain.
		+
		+	PIO takeaway. Record the foreign-government source and the confidentiality note. For post-release information, §8(1)(f) does not resurrect.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(g) — Life and safety ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
-	Privacy is to do with matters within a home, a person’s body, sexual preferences etc. This is in line with Article 19 (2) which mentions placing restrictions on Article 19

-	(1) (a) in the interest of ‘decency or morality’. There is an additional view at this juncture.38 If, however, it is felt that the information is not the result of any public activity, or disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, before denying information it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.	+	Plain English. For whistleblowers and confidential informants in law-enforcement — not for routine examiner names, interviewer names, or remarks by superior officers.

-	The proviso is meant as a test which must be applied before denying information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering demands for information from citizens. Hence, when they have a doubt, it is worthwhile for them to first consider if they would give this information to the elected representatives. They must first come to the subjective conclusion that they would not provide the information to MPs and MLAs, and record it when denying information to citizens. There is an additional view at this juncture	+	Common PIO error. Using §8(1)(g) to shield names of examiners / evaluators / selection-committee members. That is §8(1)(e) territory at best; §8(1)(g) requires a real and reasonable probability of threat to life.
-	Another perspective is that information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure would cause harm to some interest of an individual. If, however, the information can be given to legislature it means the likely harm is not very high since what is given to legislature will be in public domain. Hence, it is necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of Section 8 (1) (j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. This must be recorded in the decision.	+

-	It is worth noting that in the Privacy bill 2014, it was proposed that Sensitive personal data should be defined as Personal data relating to: “(a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password,	+	==== 8(1)(h) — Investigation and prosecution ====

-	(e) banking credit and financial data (f) narco-analysis or polygraph test data, (g) sexual orientation.” This is in line with Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?32 }}

-	----	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.//
		+	</WRAP>

		+	Plain English. Information can be refused only if disclosure would genuinely impede one of: ongoing investigation, apprehension of the accused, or ongoing prosecution.

-	**Section 9**	+	**Time-bound. §8(1)(h) does not mean "any case pending in court." Once the investigation report is submitted / closed, §8(1)(h) ceases to apply and fresh reasoning must be recorded for any continued exemption. //S. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal// (Calcutta HC, 2018) and //S. Muthukumarasamy v. Commissioner, Labour Dept// (Madras HC, 2018) both enforce this**.
-	//Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State**.//	+
-	**	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	If an applicant asks copies of a book in a library, or a work of art, or a film, whose copyright vests with somebody, then it would not be given.	+	The mere fact that release may weaken the prosecution case is not a ground — that would be protecting untruths on the record.

-	However, by implication, if the copyright belongs to the State, it would have to be given under Right to Information. To obviate the problem of citizens asking for copies of priced publications of the State, some State rules have stated that for priced publications, the fee to be paid will be the sale price of the publication. However, no information can be denied on the ground that the copyright vests with the State.	+	==== 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.//
		+
		+	//Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over://
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. This is a time-bounded exemption — not a permanent bar. Cabinet deliberations are protected during decision-making. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, the government must disclose the reasons and material.
		+
		+	Authority. //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — post-decisional disclosability of file-notings and cabinet deliberations.
		+
		+	Statutory reinforcement. §4(1)(c) — publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies. §4(1)(d) — provide reasons for administrative / quasi-judicial decisions. These duties ripen after the cabinet decision.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(j) — Personal information [amended 2025] ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round alert 90%>
		+	DPDP Amendment — 14 November 2025. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended §8(1)(j). The Act now reads:
		+
		+	>//Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.//
		+
		+	Two things have changed. The internal "public-interest override" clause and the "information which cannot be denied to Parliament" proviso are both removed. The public-interest override now operates solely through §8(2).
		+
		+	Full legal analysis: [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]. Context: [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|Blog — DPDP Rules 2025 RTI amendment]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. Two tests for a §8(1)(j) refusal:
		+
		+	- Is the information personal (attributes of an individual, not an institution)?
		+	- Does disclosure cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, with no relationship to public activity?
		+
		+	If the information is already in the public domain, or flows from a public activity (applying for a job, ration card, passport, tender), §8(1)(j) typically fails.
		+
		+	Case law.
		+
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records of public servants generally fall within §8(1)(j); salary / rank data is open.
		+	* //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI//, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy as fundamental right; proportionality governs any intrusion.
		+	* //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — subjective evaluation (ACR) is personal but subject to §8(2) public interest.
		+	* //Thalappalam Cooperative Bank// (as applied) — member-level financial data carries a privacy interest even in a public authority.
		+
		+	PIO takeaway. Post-2025, record the privacy analysis inside §8(1)(j), then separately record any §8(2) override analysis. The two are now textually and analytically distinct.
		+
		+	===== Also deniable — §9, §11, §24 =====
		+
		+	==== §9 — Third-party copyright ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s9-copyright.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. If the copyright belongs to someone other than the State — a publisher, film-maker, artist — the public authority cannot hand out copies.
		+
		+	If the copyright belongs to the State, the information must be disclosed. Some state rules specify that for priced publications, the RTI fee equals the sale price — but no State-copyrighted material can be refused on copyright grounds.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-9\|Section 9 — Copyright]].
		+
		+	==== §11 — Third-party information ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s11-thirdparty.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	§11 is procedural, not a standalone ground. When requested information relates to a third party (a vendor, a complainant, another citizen), the PIO must:
		+
		+	- Within 5 days of receipt, give written notice to the third party.
		+	- The third party has 10 days to represent.
		+	- The PIO then decides, within 40 days total, recording reasoning.
		+
		+	A §11 notice skipped is a procedural defect — the PIO order is fragile on appeal. Skipping §11 is one of the top reasons FAA orders are set aside.
		+
		+	Authority. //C. Muniyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu// (Madras HC, 2013); //Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2016).
		+
		+	Deep dive: [[:act:section-11\|Section 11 — Third-party information]] and [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest balancing]].
		+
		+	==== §24 — Intelligence and security agencies ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s24-agencies.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	Section 24(1) exempts the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule — for example: IB, RAW, CBI, Directorate of Enforcement, NCB, and specified state agencies.
		+
		+	Critical carve-outs.
		+
		+	* §24(1) proviso — allegations of corruption or human-rights violation are disclosable, even for Schedule-II agencies.
		+	* §24(2) proviso — for human-rights requests, the request goes through the CIC (central) or SIC (state); response time 45 days.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-24\|Section 24 — Intelligence and security]].
		+
		+	===== §8(2) — the public-interest override =====
		+
		+	Section 8(2) is the master override. Even when a §8(1) exemption applies, disclosure may be ordered if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.
		+
		+	Who applies §8(2)?
		+
		+	* PIO at first instance — must record the balancing reasoning when applying or rejecting the override.
		+	* FAA on First Appeal — reviews the PIO's balancing and may substitute its own.
		+	* SIC / CIC on Second Appeal — the final balancing forum.
		+	* High Court on writ — reviews on legal principle.
		+
		+	Record-keeping requirement. "Public interest not satisfied" without analysis is an appealable defect. The officer must lay out the benefit of disclosure, the harm avoided, and why one outweighs the other.
		+
		+	Deep dive: [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest]] and [[:faa-section-19-8-powers\|§19(8) — FAA's disclosure power]].
		+
		+	===== §10 — severability =====
		+
		+	Section 10 requires the PIO to sever exempt content from non-exempt content. A blanket refusal of an entire document — when only a portion is exempt — is itself a §10 violation.
		+
		+	Example. An inspection report contains (a) procedural sections, (b) an identified whistleblower's name. The PIO must sever (b) under §8(1)(g) and release (a) with the name redacted.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-10\|Section 10 — Severability]] and //Principal, GMC Thiruvananthapuram v. KIC// (Kerala HC, 2019) — severability is favoured over blanket denial.
		+
		+	===== Non-grounds — what cannot refuse an RTI =====
		+
		+	A PIO cannot refuse on any of these grounds, even if cited:
		+
		+	* "Confidential" / "Secret" stamp on the file. §8(1)(a) requires specific harm-test.
		+	* "Matter is sub-judice." §8(1)(b) requires an express court order.
		+	* "Why" questions. This is a drafting issue, not a refusal ground. The PIO has a §5(3) duty to help reframe. See [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]].
		+	* "No reason given by the applicant." §6(2) explicitly bars asking for reasons.
		+	* "Voluminous request." §7(9) allows offering inspection + selective copies, not blanket refusal.
		+	* "Information is old." If records exist, they must be supplied. The Act sets no age limit.
		+	* "Information lies with another department." §6(3) requires the PIO to transfer within 5 days.
		+	* "Applicant's motive is malafide." §6(2) bars inquiry into motive.
		+	* "Larger public interest not served." This cannot refuse disclosure — §8(2) is an override to disclose, not a freestanding exemption.
		+
		+	Common PIO errors: [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]. Drafting fixes if your RTI was refused: [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|drafting fix-it guide]].
		+
		+	===== Got refused? The 30-day appeal path =====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:appeal-path.svg?1000 \|The RTI appeal path }}
		+
		+	- First Appeal under §19(1) — file within 30 days of receipt of refusal (or of expiry of the 30-day reply window). Addressed to the FAA within the same public authority. FAA decides in 30 days, extendable by 15 days with reasons — max 45 days. See [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]] and [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]].
		+	- Second Appeal under §19(3) — file within 90 days of the FAA's decision (or of expiry of the FAA's time). Addressed to the SIC (state records) or CIC (central records). Second Appeals may be argued in person.
		+	- Writ petition — under Articles 226 (HC) or 32 (SC) for pure questions of law where the Commission has made a legal error or failed to follow precedent.
		+	- Section 20 penalty — ask the Commission in the second appeal to impose up to Rs. 25,000 on the PIO who refused without valid ground, delayed, or gave false / misleading information. Penalty is personal to the officer.
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	Ready to file your appeal?
		+
		+	* Use the [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]] to structure your grounds.
		+	* See [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]] for the exact window and format.
		+	* If your original RTI was weak, start with the [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|drafting fix-it guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked =====
		+
		+	Q1. How many grounds are there in Section 8(1)? \\ Exactly ten — clauses (a) through (j). Any denial citing a ground outside these ten is invalid.
		+
		+	Q2. Is "sub-judice" a valid ground to refuse? \\ No. §8(1)(b) requires an express court order forbidding publication. Mere pendency is not enough.
		+
		+	Q3. Can a PIO refuse by citing "Confidential" on the file? \\ No. An internal classification is not itself a §8(1)(a) ground. The PIO must demonstrate specific harm.
		+
		+	Q4. What changed in §8(1)(j) on 14 November 2025? \\ The internal public-interest override and the Parliament proviso were removed by §44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. Public-interest balancing now operates only via §8(2). See [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
		+
		+	Q5. Can I get copies of file-notings? \\ Yes. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, §8(1)(i) does not bar file-notings. The post-decisional disclosure principle in //R.K. Jain v. UoI// (2013) 14 SCC 794 applies.
		+
		+	Q6. Can the PIO ask me why I want the information? \\ No — §6(2) expressly bars this, except for the purposes of contacting the applicant.
		+
		+	Q7. If my request is voluminous, can the PIO refuse? \\ No. §7(9) allows the PIO to change the form — typically by offering inspection and copies of specified pages — but not to refuse outright.
		+
		+	Q8. Can I get the audit / inspection report of a regulated entity? \\ Yes — //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 confirmed it, and subsequent HC rulings (//Indian Bank// at Madras, //KSEB// at Kerala) apply it.
		+
		+	Q9. What is Section 24 — does it cover all police / security agencies? \\ No. Only those listed in the Second Schedule. And even then, corruption and human-rights-violation allegations are disclosable under the proviso.
		+
		+	Q10. What's the maximum penalty on a PIO for wrongful refusal? \\ Rs. 25,000 under §20(1), imposed personally on the defaulting officer. Repeated defaults can attract departmental action.
		+
		+	===== Related reading =====
		+
		+	==== The Act — section pages ====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:act:section-7\|§7 — Reply deadline and form]]
		+	* [[:act:section-8\|§8 — Exemption from disclosure]]
		+	* [[:act:section-9\|§9 — Copyright]]
		+	* [[:act:section-10\|§10 — Severability]]
		+	* [[:act:section-11\|§11 — Third-party information]]
		+	* [[:act:section-19\|§19 — Appeals]]
		+	* [[:act:section-20\|§20 — Penalties]]
		+	* [[:act:section-24\|§24 — Intelligence and security]]
		+
		+	==== PIO / FAA frameworks ====
		+
		+	* [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base\|PIO / FAA knowledge base]]
		+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]]
		+	* [[:pio-deemed-refusal-section-7-2\|PIO Framework — deemed refusal §7(2)]]
		+	* [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]]
		+	* [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]]
		+	* [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA — privacy vs public interest]]
		+	* [[:faa-section-19-8-powers\|FAA — §19(8) disclosure powers]]
		+
		+	==== Case-law anchors ====
		+
		+	* [[:bombay-hc-rti-rulings\|Bombay HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:madras-hc-rti-rulings\|Madras HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings\|Kerala HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:karnataka-hc-rti-rulings\|Karnataka HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:calcutta-hc-rti-rulings\|Calcutta HC RTI rulings]]
		+
		+	==== For applicants ====
		+
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to file RTI online — 2026 guide]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]]
		+	* [[:faq\|RTI FAQ — 25 most-asked questions]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	* Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019, 2023)
		+	* Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j) (effective 14 November 2025)
		+	* Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — §3(4)
		+	* //S.P. Gupta v. Union of India//, AIR 1982 SC 149
		+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497
		+	* //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212
		+	* //Namit Sharma v. Union of India//, (2013) 1 SCC 745
		+	* //R.K. Jain v. Union of India//, (2013) 14 SCC 794
		+	* //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82
		+	* //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136
		+	* //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1

	----		----

		+	//Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rejection exemption act section-8 section-9 section-11 section-24 dpdp pio-faa explainer}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

-	- where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure;	+	{{ :public-interest-flowchart.png?1200x662 \|Public interest under RTI 2026 — where Section 8(2) still works (green) versus the myths around the DPDP amendment (red)}}
-	- where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect;	+
-	- the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence;	+
-	- the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought;	+
-	- the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case;	+
-	- the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The terms public interest has to be interpreted as “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.	+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-	The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining larger public interest in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120((R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120)) where it was observed as under:	+	The second Section 8(2) override is the one that matters in 2026. It is the one people are told is dead. It is not.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	//54. The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced...”//	+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-	[<>]	+	===== Does the override still work in 2026 =====
		+
		+	Yes. Here is what works, and here is what needs sharper drafting than before.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(a) to (i) — override works exactly as before ====
		+
		+	For clauses (a) to (i) — sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary, security, foreign relations, investigation, cabinet papers — nothing has changed. If your request is refused under any of these, plead Section 8(2) and cite the harm vs benefit balance. These clauses were not touched by the DPDP amendment. The //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) reading of the "fiduciary" clause and the //Bhagat Singh// reading of "impedes investigation" — see [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] and [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] — still control.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(j) — override works, but the plea has to be specific ====
		+
		+	On personal information, the Section 8(2) override still runs. What changed is the evidentiary burden. The First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission now expect the applicant to plead the public interest specifically, and at the application stage. A generic "public interest demands it" line is not enough. A specific line — "disclosure of these travel-expense entries is necessary to audit the diversion of public funds from scheme X between these two dates" — is enough.
		+
		+	==== Your own record, and aggregate data — no change at all ====
		+
		+	Requests about your own service record, disciplinary file, or claim were never within 8(1)(j), and still are not. Requests for aggregate or anonymised data (number of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) were never within 8(1)(j) either. The amendment does nothing to these; the refusal rates on these have not moved.
		+
		+	==== What a winning 2026 RTI actually looks like ====
		+
		+	* Works. "Total expenditure on project X between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, file note on sanction dated [Y], names of the signatories on the approval page of the file."
		+	* Fails at first instance, wins on appeal with 8(2) plea. "Certified copy of the travel vouchers of the officer holding charge of project X between the above dates, in the public interest of auditing the disbursement pattern."
		+	* Fails cleanly. "Mr Sharma's salary, phone number, and home address." No public-interest anchor, no public-activity link. Section 8(1)(j) bites.
		+
		+	Copy-paste query templates for the subjects where 8(2) is most often needed live at [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 Draft from a public-activity anchor. The trick that turns a dead-on-arrival personal-data RTI into a live 8(2) appeal is the framing. Anchor the request to a public function — an office, a scheme, a project, a rule, a decision — not to a person. The record about the person follows the office.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins =====
		+
		+	This is the part I spend the most time coaching new applicants on in 2026. There are five moving parts.
		+
		+	- Name the public interest. Not "in the public interest." Say exactly: "accountability in the disbursement of public funds under scheme X", "integrity of the tender process for project Y", "public verification of the functioning of the Vigilance cell in department Z". Specific. One sentence.
		+	- Name the harm you do not cause. Pre-empt the 8(1)(j) shield. "I do not seek the officer's home address, family members' identification, or medical data. I seek the record of their public function in this matter." This moves the PIO off the easy refusal.
		+	- Invoke Section 8(2) on the face of the application. Do not save it for appeal. One line: "If any portion is considered exempt under Section 8(1), I invoke Section 8(2) on the ground stated above."
		+	- Ask for Section 10 severance as a fallback. "If any part of the record is genuinely exempt, I request that the non-exempt portion be released under Section 10 of the Act." This forces the PIO to engage, not to refuse wholesale.
		+	- Keep the request narrow. Name the file. Name the period. Name the office. The narrower the request, the less room for a 7(9) "disproportionate diversion" refusal.
		+
		+	For the full drafting pattern across twelve subjects, see [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]]. For the ten most common drafting mistakes, see [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]]. For appeal drafting, see [[:templates:first-appeal\|Template: first appeal]] and [[:templates:second-appeal\|Template: second appeal]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 The line that moves a 2026 appeal. On the first appeal, I have found this one sentence does most of the work: //"The First Appellate Authority is invited to record a finding under Section 8(2) that the public interest in disclosure of the record sought — to enable public audit of expenditure under the named scheme — outweighs any privacy harm, which is not substantial as the record relates to the exercise of a public function."// Adapt it to your facts. It works more often than not.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Court and Commission rulings =====
		+
		+	The working jurisprudence on public interest is stable. Three anchor rulings do most of the weight-lifting. Newer rulings apply them to new fact patterns.
		+
		+	^ Year ^ Case ^ What it did ^
		+	\| 2011 \| [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] \| Established that disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception; file notings are information \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande]] \| ACRs and property returns generally exempt under 8(1)(j); but "larger public interest" can override \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam v. Kerala]] \| Narrowed "substantially financed"; coops outside RTI unless substantial funding \|
		+	\| 2016 \| [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] \| Fiduciary clause 8(1)(e) read narrowly; regulator is not a fiduciary of the regulated \|
		+	\| 2017 \| [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy]] \| Privacy is a fundamental right; proportionality test applies to any State limitation \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|//Electoral Bonds// (ADR)]] \| Voter's right to know political funding under Article 19(1)(a); transparency is constitutional \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:blog:delhi-hc-phd-theses-rti-ruling-2024\|Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses ruling]] \| Theses at publicly-funded universities disclosable; Section 8(1)(j) read narrowly; severance is the answer \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC on public servants' assets]] \| Annual Property Returns disclosable with specific public-interest plea via Section 8(2) \|
		+
		+	Post-November 2025 orders continue to apply the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test. The [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply analysis]] tracks the drafting register of compliant denials. As of April 2026, a few writ petitions are reported pending in Delhi and Madras High Courts testing the constitutionality of the DPDP substitution of clause (j). None has resulted in a reported stay; the substitution operates as law.
		+
		+	===== Stakeholder impact =====
		+
		+	^ Stakeholder ^ What changed for you ^ What to do today ^
		+	\| Citizen \| Plead Section 8(2) at the application stage; don't rely on the old in-clause proviso \| Anchor requests to a public function, not a person \|
		+	\| Public Information Officer \| Must test the 8(2) plea on the record's facts; cannot boilerplate-refuse \| Pass a reasoned order per Section 7(8); invoke Section 10 severance where possible \|
		+	\| First Appellate Authority \| Expect more 8(2) pleas; apply proportionality, don't rubber-stamp \| [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|FAA guide]] + [[:templates:faa-speaking-order\|speaking order template]] \|
		+	\| Information Commission \| First wave of orders under new 8(1)(j) shaping the expectations \| Publish reasoned orders for precedent value \|
		+	\| Researcher \| Published records and case law — unchanged; internal drafts — narrower \| Shift more to gazette + final orders; use Shodhganga for %%PhD%% theses \|
		+	\| Activist \| Documented refusals now feed any constitutional challenge \| Share refusals via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] \|
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	^ Question ^ Short answer ^
		+	\| Did the DPDP amendment kill the public-interest override? \| No. It removed the in-clause proviso within Section 8(1)(j). The stand-alone Section 8(2) override is unchanged and still applies. \|
		+	\| Can I still get someone's salary via RTI? \| Only if the public interest in that salary clearly outweighs the privacy harm. Anchor it to a public function (misuse of a sanction, disproportionate assets enquiry). A bare salary request without that anchor fails under 8(1)(j). \|
		+	\| Do I need to say "Section 8(2)" in my application? \| Yes. Specifically name the clause and name the public interest. Vague language is the main reason 8(2) pleas fail at first instance. \|
		+	\| What about ACRs and property returns? \| //Girish Deshpande// still controls. Generally exempt under 8(1)(j); disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. See the [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande page]] and the [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC direction]]. \|
		+	\| Has the Supreme Court ruled on the DPDP substitution? \| As of April 2026, writ petitions are pending in High Courts. No binding Supreme Court ruling on the substitution yet. \|
		+	\| Can my own record be refused under 8(1)(j)? \| No. Your own information was never within 8(1)(j), and is not now. \|
		+	\| Does Section 8(2) apply at the PIO stage or only on appeal? \| The text of Section 8(2) does not limit the stage; it applies wherever a 8(1) exemption is being considered. In practice, many PIOs apply it; if not, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission certainly do. \|
		+	\| What if the PIO refuses without citing any 8(1) clause at all? \| That refusal itself is defective under Section 7(8). File a first appeal on that ground. A bare "confidential" is not a valid refusal. \|
		+	\| How is the proportionality test applied? \| Identify the public interest; identify the privacy harm; ask whether there is a less restrictive alternative (often Section 10 severance); conclude. See the [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|Puttaswamy]] framework. \|
		+	\| Where can I share a refusal I've received? \| Via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] — post in the discussion on any relevant page. \|
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Filing right now?
		+	* New to RTI? Start at [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 step-by-step]].
		+	* Need a template? Copy one from [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* Refused already? Read [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]] and grab the [[:templates:first-appeal\|first-appeal template]].
		+	* Got a PIO refusal worth studying? Share it in the discussion at the bottom of this page via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related on this site =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]], Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	* [[:act/summary\|RTI Act summary, sections, and notes]].
		+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection — concept note]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy\|Privacy under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy of public servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability — Section 10]].
		+	* [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|Fiduciary relationship — Section 8(1)(e)]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment]].
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].
		+	* [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
		+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions]].
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]].
		+	* [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* [[:state-vs-central-rti\|State RTI vs Central RTI]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
		+	- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
		+	- //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+	- //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
		+	- //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
		+	- //Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India// (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
		+	- //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner//, W.P. (C) 3114/2007, Delhi High Court.
		+	- Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to %%PhD%% theses, December 2024.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	20 April 2026. Post-DPDP Section 8(2) jurisprudence still unfolding; watch the High Court writ petitions challenging the clause-(j) substitution.
		+
		+	{{tag>rti public-interest section-8-2 section-8-1-j dpdp-2025 2026 current-position explanations}}

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

Citizenship under RTI Act 2005

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

2018/06/01 02:02		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======
-	{{tag>citizenship,india}}{{like>}}	+
-	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400 \|}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-citizen-under-rti-act.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / citizen-under-rti-act — RTI Wiki}}
-	Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations citizen under rti act rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Only a citizen of India can file a Right to Information application. A company, firm, trust, or other juristic person cannot.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* File the application under your own name as an individual, with your signature.
		+	* Do not file on a company letterhead or in the name of a trust. A Public Information Officer can refuse on this ground.
		+	* The Act does not ask for a passport, Aadhaar, or voter identity card as proof of citizenship. A declaration in the application that you are a citizen of India is ordinarily sufficient.
		+	* A director or employee of a company, applying in his or her own name as an individual citizen, can file. The information supplied may then be used by the company, but the right to apply is of the individual, not of the company.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>citizenship india}}
		+	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400x300 \|}}
		+	Only citizens can apply for the [[:explanations:information\|information]] under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.

	‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.		‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.
Line 9:		Line 42:

	In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]		In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."		"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."
Line 28:		Line 50:

	- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.		- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.
-	- Section-5(1) provides that every public authority shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.	+	- Section-5(1) provides that every [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.
	- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.		- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
	- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.		- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.
Line 42:		Line 64:
	===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====		===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====
	<pagebreak>		<pagebreak>
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====		==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====

-	The issue whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:	+	The issue of whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:


-	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the definition of word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”	+	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, the definition of the word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:		In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:
Line 80:		Line 80:


-	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 include natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.	+	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 includes natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
		+
		+	The issue of whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	The issue whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======

Line 104:		Line 93:

	In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.		In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..		In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..

Line 133:		Line 111:

	A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”		A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.		The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.

Line 161:		Line 128:
	Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen.		Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the Right to Information Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants / petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not “citizens’. This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entitles. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant / appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen.

-	In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].	+	In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[:act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –		In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –

Line 188:		Line 144:
	52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>		52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>

-	==== Conclusions ====	+	===== Conclusions =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.		* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.
	* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.		* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.
Line 218:		Line 162:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+

Competent Authority under RTI — Section 2(e)

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

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Competent Authority under RTI Act ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(competent authority rti, section 2e rti, section 28 rti, high court rules rti, supreme court rules rti, legislature rti, rti rule making)
-	{{tag>rti act,competent authority,interpretation}}{{like>}}	+	metatag-description=(Competent Authority under RTI — Section 2(e) - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest.)}}
-	{{ :explanations:authority-rti.jpg \|}}	+
-	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]], the competent authority is:	+
-	- the Speaker in the case of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a state or a Union territory having such Assembly and the chairman in the case of the Council of States or a Legislative council of a State”;	+
-	- The Chief Justice of India in the case of the Supreme court;	+
-	- The Chief Justice of the High court in the case of a High court;	+
-	- The President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities established or constituted by or under the constitution;	+
-	- the administrator appointed under article 239 of the constitution;	+

		+	====== Competent Authority under RTI — Section 2(e) =====

-	===== Interpretation of Competent Authority =====	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-competent-authority.png?direct&1200 \|Competent Authority under RTI — Section 2(e) — RTI Wiki}}

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

-	This needs to be viewed through section 2(g) and section 28 which suggests that each competent authority is vested with rule making powers. Rules framed by a competent authority are applicable only to Public Authorities working under the control of the concerned competent authority. This rulemaking power of all competent authorities is not subjected to provisions of section 29. This apparently, is to respect the autonomy enjoyed by competent authorities other than those mentioned at 2(e)(iv).	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	<html>	+	In one line: [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(e)]] of the RTI Act names "competent authorities" who, under [[:act#section-28power-to-make-rules-by-competent-authority\|Section 28]], may make their own rules for the implementation of the Act within their domain. The competent authorities include the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Speakers and Chairmen of State Legislatures, the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justices of High Courts, the President (for the Supreme Court and certain constitutional offices), and the Governor (for State High Courts).
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	</WRAP>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	Rules can be made by the Speakers of the respective houses, the Chief Justices of the respective Courts, Governors of respective states and the President. The only specific task of the ‘competent authority’ discussed in Section 28 is the right to make rules mainly for fees and formats for appeals.

-	For Union territories, the administrator appointed by the President can make the rules. These rules cannot denote anything which is not in consonance with the law. In case of any inconsistency, the law will prevail.

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	Section 2(e) identifies the "competent authority" empowered to make rules for their own institution. India's independent Right to Information reference, updated 2026.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	===== Who is a Competent Authority =====
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+	Under Section 2(e), the competent authority is:
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+	- Speaker of the Lok Sabha — for the Lok Sabha.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	- Chairman of the Rajya Sabha — for the Rajya Sabha.
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+	- Speakers of State Legislative Assemblies / Chairmen of Legislative Councils — for their respective Houses.
-	<script>	+	- Chief Justice of India — for the Supreme Court.
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	- Chief Justices of High Courts — for their High Courts.
-	</script>	+	- President of India — for other authorities constituted under the Constitution of India (e.g., Union Public Service Commission, Election Commission of India).
-	</html>	+	- Governor — for other authorities constituted under the Constitution for a State (e.g., State Public Service Commissions).
-	[<>]	+
		+	===== Why it matters =====
		+
		+	Competent authorities make their own fee rules, forms, and appellate procedure. Examples of rules that depart from Central Rules:
		+
		+	* Supreme Court of India Rules (CJI as competent authority) — fees, application format, appellate procedure on the administrative side.
		+	* Delhi High Court RTI Rules — Rs 10 fee, specific PIO designations.
		+	* Parliament Secretariat RTI Rules — separate fee, governed by Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
		+
		+	Each High Court has its own RTI page on its website; the Rules are usually a short PDF on the Gazette.
		+
		+	===== Limitations on competent-authority rule-making =====
		+
		+	* Rules cannot contradict the Act (Section 28 is subordinate).
		+	* Rules cannot introduce new exemptions beyond Sections 8, 9 and 24.
		+	* Fee must be reasonable; first hour of inspection remains free and BPL exemption applies universally under [[:act#section-7disposal-of-request\|Section 7(5)]].
		+
		+	===== Application to judicial records =====
		+
		+	Judicial-side records (case files, judgments not yet delivered, draft orders) fall under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and each High Court's judicial rules — separate from RTI. The RTI Act applies to the administrative side of courts (pay bills, leave orders, procurement) per the rules made by the competent authority. See //Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra// (Delhi HC, 2017).
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	If your RTI concerns a High Court, Parliament, or a constitutional authority, first locate the rules made by that competent authority on the institution's own website. Use the fee prescribed there, not the Central Rules.
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005]]
		+	* [[:rules:start\|RTI Rules directory]]
		+	* [[:rules:sc\|Supreme Court RTI Rules]]
		+	* [[:explanations:prescribed\|Prescribed — Section 2(g)]]
		+	* [[:rti-fees-by-state\|RTI Fees by State]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(e), 28.
		+	- Supreme Court of India Rules under Section 28.
		+	- High Court RTI Rules (notified on each High Court website).
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations section-2e section-28 competent-authority}}

-	~~socialite~~

Composite Petition under RTI Act

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

2020/07/13 03:33		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Composite Petition under RTI Act ======		====== Composite Petition under RTI Act ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-composite-petition.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / composite-petition — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations composite petition rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(If the petitioner has sought the required information under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section...)}}
		+
		+
	{{ :explanations:composite-application.png \|}}		{{ :explanations:composite-application.png \|}}
-	If the petitioner has sought the required information under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005 or any other provision of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action/disciplinary action against the erring officials under Section 20(1)/20(2) of the RTI Act 2005, in that case, this petition may be legally construed as	+	If the petitioner has sought the required [[:explanations:information\|information]] under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005 or any other provision of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action/disciplinary action against the erring officials under Section 20(1)/20(2) of the RTI Act 2005, in that case, this petition may be legally construed as
-	composite petition in the light of provisions of [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]].	+	composite petition in the light of provisions of [[:act:\|RTI Act 2005]].

-	<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>

	===== Delhi High Court Decision =====		===== Delhi High Court Decision =====
Line 33:		Line 27:


-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	"In other words, it may be stated here that the relief provided under section 19(8) (a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise."		"In other words, it may be stated here that the relief provided under section 19(8) (a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise."
Line 51:		Line 34:
	In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the composite petition, the composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.		In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the composite petition, the composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

-	<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>	+

	Courtesy: [[https://rtiindia.org/profile/170788-rti-rajendran/\|RTI Rajendran]]		Courtesy: [[https://rtiindia.org/profile/170788-rti-rajendran/\|RTI Rajendran]]
Line 71:		Line 43:

	Download the Decisions of CIC on the composite petition.		Download the Decisions of CIC on the composite petition.
-	<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>	+
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_000542___543___544___545.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_000542___543___544___545.pdf \|}}
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_cic_ky_a_2015_000175_m_155699.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_cic_ky_a_2015_000175_m_155699.pdf \|}}
Line 90:		Line 51:
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petitions_cic_ky_c_2015_000152_m_180880.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petitions_cic_ky_c_2015_000152_m_180880.pdf \|}}

		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Severability — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

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

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

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

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

Line 39:		Line 57:

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:		If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:
Line 61:		Line 68:
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
	----		----
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-fb+5w+4e-db+86"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="3623150129"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

Missing Files under RTI Act — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2018/01/21 08:25		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Missing Files under RTI Act ======	+	====== Missing Files under RTI Act — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-missing-files-under-rti.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / missing-files-under-rti — RTI Wiki}}

		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations missing files under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public...)}}

-	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority.	+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. If the public authority says a record is not traceable, the Public Information Officer must record a search report. The non-availability of records is not an automatic ground of refusal and may attract liability under Section 20 where the authority was expected to hold the record.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Ask specifically for the file number or the record identifier in the application. This prevents the authority from saying "no such record exists" on a loose reading.
		+	* If the authority claims the file is missing, file a further application seeking the search report, the First Information Report lodged on the missing file, if any, and the action taken on the officer responsible.
		+	* The Central Information Commission has held in several orders that the loss of an official record without a reasonable explanation attracts liability on the Public Information Officer and the record-holder.
		+	* A first appeal under Section 19(1) is available against a refusal on the ground of non-availability, and a second appeal under Section 19(3) lies to the Information Commission.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the [[:explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]] rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]].


Line 13:		Line 29:

	The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.		The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “[[:explanations:information\|Information]]” through RTI Application.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “Information” through RTI Application.	+

	S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.		S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.
Line 52:		Line 57:

	The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.		The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).		Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).
Line 76:		Line 70:

	6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.		6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”		7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”

Line 102:		Line 85:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-	<html>	+	===== Legal Basis =====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The words “substantially financed” have been used in [[:act\|Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii)]], while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds	+
-	provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act.	+

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

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

-	Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.	+	- Does the body rely on government funds for over 50 percent of its operating expenses? If yes, strong presumption of "substantial".
-	<html>	+	- Is the funding recurring (annual grant, salary support, capital advance) or a one-time contribution?
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	- Would the body continue to function without government funding? A cooperative bank receiving a small licence fee — yes. A private college receiving 90 percent of its salary budget from UGC — no.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	- Is there government control on top of funding (nominated directors, audit, fee regulation)?
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	- Is the body a "creature of statute" — incorporated under a special law that subjects it to State oversight?
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	'In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'	+	===== Worked examples =====
-	Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. It is closer to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context.	+

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

-	The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.	+	===== Drafting strategy when the body denies coverage =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

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

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

-	~~DISCUSSION~~

Refund of Fees — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:03:44 +0000

2018/01/21 08:26		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Refund of Fees ======	+	====== Refund of Fees — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-refund-fees.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / refund-fees — RTI Wiki}}

-	{{tag>RTIAct}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations refund fees rti right to information india)
-	Observations made by the High Court of Gujarat ((in the matter of Ahmedabad Education Society & Another Vis UOI & Others [Special Civil Application No.23305 of 2007])) to the notice of the Central Infonnation Commission and all the State Information Commissions:	+	metatag-description=(Refund of Fees — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest amend)}}

-	"As per Section 18, the Complaint can be preferred before the State Information Commission and Chief Information Commissioner can initiate an inquiry and can impose penalty as per Section 20 .of the Act, 2005. While holding inquiry, as per [[:act\|Section 18(3)]] of the Act, 2005, State Chief Information.

-	<html>	+	Refund of Fees. RTI Wiki — citizen-first guide with the procedure, fee, timeline, sample format, and Section 19 escalation if your application is delayed.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	COmmissioner has been clothed with powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral and written evidence or oath, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. But so far as refund of fees is concerned, it is a mater to be decided by the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure, 1907.
-	State Chief Information· Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority under the Act,f005, to pass an order of refund of the fees."
-
-	{{:important-decisions:court-case-laws:refund_of_fees_rti_act.pdf\|Ahmedabad Education Society & Another Vis UOI & Others [Special Civil Application No.23305 of 2007]}}
	----		----
	===== Discuss this topic =====		===== Discuss this topic =====

What is Fiduciary Relationship

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

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

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

	Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.		Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.
Line 16:		Line 34:

	Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.		Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	It also cannot be equated with mere [[:explanations:privacy\|privacy]] or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	It also cannot be equated with mere privacy or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010	+

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

	===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====		===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+


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

-	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the Public authority, nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))	+	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the [[:explanations:public-authority\|Public authority]], nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====		==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====

Line 86:		Line 71:

	==== More Common terms under RTI ====		==== More Common terms under RTI ====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

Line 103:		Line 77:

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

What is Privacy under RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[:explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Public Authority — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2018/06/01 15:00		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Public Authority ======	+	====== Public Authority — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
		+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-public-authority.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / public-authority — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations public authority rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(As defined in Section 2 (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted — a) by or under the...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 2(h) defines a 'public authority' — any authority, body, or institution constituted by or under the Constitution, a law of Parliament or State legislature, or a notification of the appropriate Government. Extends to bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the Government.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Government departments, Central and State PSUs, statutory regulators, constitutional bodies, are all public authorities.
		+	* Cooperative societies were held outside in //Thalappalam// (2013) unless substantially financed.
		+	* Political parties — the CIC held six national parties as public authorities (2013); compliance is pending.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
	{{tag>public authority}}{{like>}}		{{tag>public authority}}{{like>}}
-	{{:explanations:pa.jpg\|}}	+	{{:explanations:pa.jpg?350x350\|}}
	===== Who is Public Authority =====		===== Who is Public Authority =====
-	As defined in [[act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —	+	As defined in [[:act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —
	a) by or under the constitution;		a) by or under the constitution;
	b) by any other law made by Parliament;		b) by any other law made by Parliament;
Line 9:		Line 41:
	d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate		d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
	Government, and includes any--		Government, and includes any--
-	(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;	+	(i) body owned, controlled or [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]];
	(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”		(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

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

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

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

	By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.		By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

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

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

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

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

Prescribed — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

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

2018/06/03 05:38		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Prescribed ======	+	====== Prescribed — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
-	{{tag>prescribed,section 2, rti act}} {{like>}}	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-prescribed.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / prescribed — RTI Wiki}}
-	Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;"	+
-	<html>	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations prescribed rti right to information india)
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	metatag-description=(Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;")}}
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	===== Related =====
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
-	</script>	+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
-	</html>	+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>prescribed section 2 rti act}} {{like>}}
		+	Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the [[:explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]], as the case may be;"
	===== Interpretation of Prescribed under RTI Act =====		===== Interpretation of Prescribed under RTI Act =====

Line 20:		Line 26:
	Other Public Authorities or departments have no authority to make any rules.		Other Public Authorities or departments have no authority to make any rules.

-	It is normally accepted that regulations also cannot go beyond what is authorised, For example, rules cannot specify exempting any information, beyond what is exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act.	+	It is normally accepted that regulations also cannot go beyond what is authorised, For example, rules cannot specify exempting any [[:explanations:information\|information]], beyond what is exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act.

	===== There is an additional view =====		===== There is an additional view =====

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) suggests that it is normally accepted that regulations cannot go beyond what is authorised, either explicitly or implicitly, by the primary legislation. One cannot, via regulation, get into matters that are not within the remit of the law.		Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) suggests that it is normally accepted that regulations cannot go beyond what is authorised, either explicitly or implicitly, by the primary legislation. One cannot, via regulation, get into matters that are not within the remit of the law.
Line 42:		Line 37:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

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