FAA Checklist for Section 8 Exemption Appeals

Section 8 is the most-cited and the most-misused provision in RTI practice. PIOs reach for it when records are inconvenient, citing the wrong sub-clause and skipping the public-interest test. The FAA is the first line of correction. This checklist gives the FAA a clause-by-clause framework so that her speaking order reads like one.

• The PIO has refused part or all of the application citing one or more sub-clauses of Section 8(1).
• The PIO has invoked Section 9 (copyright) or Section 11 (third party) along with Section 8.
• The appellant has alleged the PIO's refusal is “blanket” or “unreasoned”.
• The PIO has not addressed Section 8(2) override.

• Section 8(1) — ten exemption clauses, (a) to (j).
• Section 8(2) — public-interest override.
• Section 8(3) — twenty-year rule for non-exempt categories.
• Section 9 — copyright objections.
• Section 10 — severance.
• Section 11 — third-party procedure.
• Section 22 — RTI Act overrides the Official Secrets Act.

1. Point 1: Which sub-clause? Section 8(1)(a) sovereignty; (b) court / contempt; © breach of privilege; (d) commercial confidence; (e) fiduciary; (f) foreign government; (g) life and physical safety; (h) investigation / prosecution; (i) Cabinet papers; (j) personal information unconnected to public activity.
2. Point 2: Test for that sub-clause met? Each sub-clause has its own test. For (j), the *Girish Deshpande* three-fold test (information has no relation to public activity, disclosure has no public interest, disclosure causes unwarranted invasion of privacy). For (d), the harm to commercial position must be specifically pleaded.
3. Point 3: Section 8(2) override? Even if the sub-clause is engaged, disclosure must follow if larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. The PIO must record this balance; if she has not, the FAA must.
4. Point 4: Severance under Section 10? Where part of the record is exempt and part is not, Section 10(1) requires the PIO to redact the exempt portion and supply the rest. A “blanket” refusal that does not consider severance is bad.
5. Point 5: Section 6(3) misdirection? Sometimes the records simply lie elsewhere. The FAA should consider whether transfer under Section 6(3) is the right outcome, rather than refusal under Section 8.

• Test: would disclosure prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, or relations with foreign states?
• Trap: “national security” stamped on routine files. Ask the PIO to identify the specific records and the specific harm.
• Override: rare; Section 8(2) does not generally help here.

• Test: would disclosure attract contempt of court?
• Trap: PIO refuses every record that mentions a court. Test is whether the disclosure itself would be contempt, not whether the matter is in court.

• Trap: rarely applies to ordinary records.

• Test: information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.
• Trap: refusal because “the contractor will object”. The harm must be specific and to the contractor's competitive position, not embarrassment.
• Override: strong public interest in tender / price disclosure. Section 8(2) often tips disclosure.

• Test: information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.
• Trap: PIO claims fiduciary relationship between government and itself — wrong. Fiduciary in RTI means doctor-patient, banker-customer, lawyer-client style relationships.

• Test: information received in confidence from a foreign government.
• Trap: rarely applicable.

• Test: information that would endanger life or physical safety, or identify a confidential source.
• Trap: misused for whistleblower files. The harm must be specific.

• Test: information that would impede investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
• Trap: claimed for years after the investigation closes. Once the matter is concluded, the exemption ceases.

• Test: Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.
• Trap: mis-applied to file notings of officers. Cabinet papers means actual Cabinet submissions and decisions.
• Override: post-decision, the proviso allows disclosure of facts and reasons.

• Test: *Girish Deshpande* three-fold test.
• Trap: PIO refuses any record bearing a name.
• Override: strong, especially where the personal info relates to a public office held by the person.

ORDER UNDER SECTION 19(6) OF THE RTI ACT, 2005

[Parties and facts as in standard speaking order]

5. Findings on Section 8.
   (a) The PIO has invoked Section 8(1)(_).
   (b) The test specific to that clause is examined: [reasoning].
   (c) Section 8(2) override is examined: [reasoning].
   (d) Section 10 severance: [whether possible].
   (e) Conclusion: [allowed / partly allowed / rejected].

6. Order.
   [As appropriate]

• Approving the PIO's refusal in one line without engaging with the five points.
• Confusing Section 8(1)(j) with privacy as such — the Act has its own test.
• Ignoring Section 8(2) override — not optional, must be addressed.
• No severance examination — most refusals can be saved by partial disclosure.
• Citing only the sub-clause number without the wording — the order should quote the relevant statutory text.

Yes. The PIO must satisfy each independently. If even one is engaged, refusal is justified for that portion, subject to Section 8(2).

A weighing exercise. The harm of disclosure (named in the sub-clause) versus the public interest in disclosure (transparency, accountability, exposure of corruption, public-money trail).

Section 19(5) — the burden is on the PIO to prove that the refusal is justified. The FAA must record this in her order.

Yes. The RTI Act overrides the Official Secrets Act. PIOs sometimes hide behind OSA notings; the FAA must reject that.

No. The proviso to Section 8(1)(i) allows post-decision disclosure of the reasons.

Yes. The FAA can call for the file under her administrative authority.

That is itself a Section 18 / Section 20 issue for the Commission.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 22.
• *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC*, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• *CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal*, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• Department of Personnel and Training, rti.gov.in — guidance to PIOs and FAAs.
• Central Information Commission, cic.gov.in — illustrative Section 8 decisions.

• FAA speaking order format
• FAA powers and limits
• Deemed-refusal checklist
• Third-party appeals
• RTI rejected? How to fix it

Last reviewed: 9 May 2026.