Historical CIC Orders — A Chronological Archive

• Landmark-tier orders get a dedicated page with case analysis — linked here and cross-referenced from the relevant §8 articles.
• Significant orders get a one-line entry with the year, outcome, and a link to the primary source where available.
• News items (commissioner appointments, structural changes) are grouped by year.

For the curated top-ten analysis, see 10 Landmark CIC Decisions That Transformed RTI. For recent rulings (2021–2026), see Landmark Rulings 2021–2026.

• 2005-10-12 — CIC constituted under Section 12 of the RTI Act, 2005. First Chief IC: Wajahat Habibullah.
• 2006 — First full year of operation. Annual report notes ~10,000 registrations; most concerned pension, employment, and public-expenditure queries.
• 2007 — Hari Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the CIC held that property-tax files are public-authority records.
• 2008 — CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (pre-Supreme Court journey) — CIC directed disclosure of evaluated answer scripts; later affirmed by SC (2011) 8 SCC 497.
• 2009 — Full Bench rulings on file notings begin the doctrine that was later sealed by R.K. Jain (2013).

• 2011 — CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497. Evaluated answer scripts are information; PIOs cannot refuse on fiduciary grounds. See deep dive at RTI for answer-sheet inspection.
• 2013-06-03 — CIC Full Bench (Subhash Chandra Agrawal) held that six national political parties are public authorities under §2(h). Orders to disclose donor lists. Resistance ongoing — see Association for Democratic Reforms cases at SC.
• 2013 — R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 794. Post-decisional file-notings disclosable; subjective ACRs narrowly exempt.
• 2013 — Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank at Kerala HC (later SC 2013); CIC subsequent orders apply the substantial-financing test.
• 2014 — Girish Ramchandra Deshpande refined — individual service-record items (pay, disciplinary, transfer) become §8(1)(j) presumptive. Integrity certificates treated similarly.

• 2016 — RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 5 SCC 136. CIC's earlier line on regulator-disclosure upheld — banks cannot shield audit reports under §8(1)(d) or §8(1)(e).
• 2017 — Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Privacy as fundamental right. CIC subsequently re-calibrates §8(1)(j) orders to apply proportionality.
• 2018 — Major CIC rulings on departmental inquiry files, applying Girish Deshpande and R.K. Jain jointly. Service records become the most common §8(1)(j) battleground.
• 2019-05 — CIC does not allow dissent note of Ashok Lavasa — significant order on Election Commission dissenting notes. See our analysis.
• 2019-08 — RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019. Reduces tenure of CIC / SIC from 5 years to “as prescribed”, changes salary-equivalence. Controversial; contested in writs.
• 2020-09 — CIC CJI Office matter (Subhash Chandra Agrawal) reaches SC — Supreme Court is held to be a “public authority” under RTI; CIC jurisdiction affirmed indirectly.

• 2021 — CIC Annual Report documents ~6 lakh pending second appeals; structural capacity concerns flagged.
• 2022 — Thoufeek Ahmed v. State of Kerala (Kerala HC) — CIC / SIC orders must be reasoned; procedural compliance (hearing PIO and applicant) is reviewable.
• 2023 — Digital Personal Data Protection Act enacted. §44(3) amends RTI §8(1)(j); public-interest override moves from within clause (j) to §8(2). See DPDP Rules 2025 amendment.
• 2024 — Electoral Bonds judgment (SC, 2024) — the ADR challenge is upheld. Impacts political-finance transparency; CIC's earlier ADR orders gain force. See Electoral Bonds SC 2024.
• 2024-07 — Delhi HC Abhishek Shukla v. DU on PhD theses disclosability. CIC line on university records reinforced. See Delhi HC PhD theses ruling.
• 2025-11-14 — DPDP Rules, 2025 notified. §8(1)(j) amendment takes effect. CIC and SICs begin applying the new §8(2)-only framework. See our PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP.
• 2026-04 — Landmark rulings page last updated; see Landmark rulings 2021–2026.

Full Bench, CIC (2013) held national parties to be public authorities — enforcement remains contested. See also landmark CIC decisions.

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. CPIO, Supreme Court — SC holds that asset declarations by judges are in principle disclosable; PIO must apply §8(1)(j) balance.

Ashok Lavasa dissent-note order (2019) — CIC ruled that the dissent note on a Model Code complaint during Lok Sabha elections does not have to be disclosed under RTI. The case drew commentary on the limits of CIC jurisdiction over ECI records.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013) SC + subsequent CIC orders. Aggregate attendance, posting, and rank-data — disclosable. ACR / APAR / integrity certificate — §8(1)(j) presumptive, subject to §8(2) override.

R.K. Jain (2013) SC + Treesa Irish (Kerala HC 2010) — post-decisional file-notings part of §2(i) record. Cabinet deliberations time-bounded under §8(1)(i).

RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) SC — audit, inspection, disciplinary records of regulated entities held by regulators are disclosable. Applies to RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, PFRDA.

• 2005 — Wajahat Habibullah, first CIC.
• 2010 — A.N. Tiwari, second CIC.
• 2013 — Deepak Sandhu, third CIC (first woman CIC).
• 2014 — Rajiv Mathur, fourth CIC.
• 2014 — Hiatus under NDA-I: prolonged vacancy period drew judicial attention.
• 2015 — R.K. Mathur appointed; subsequent CICs in the 2016-2020 window.
• 2019 onwards — post-amendment tenure regime; several orders on short-notice tenure decisions.

The CIC's own portal at cic.gov.in has a case-number searcher. For RTI Wiki's curated entries:

• Top-ten landmark → 10 Landmark CIC Decisions
• Recent (2021–2026) → Landmark rulings
• Specific §8 clause → see Grounds for RTI rejection and the PIO framework pages
• Full blog coverage → Blog (year-by-year archive)

• 10 Landmark CIC Decisions That Transformed RTI
• Landmark rulings 2021–2026
• Bombay HC RTI rulings
• Madras HC RTI rulings
• Kerala HC RTI rulings
• Karnataka HC RTI rulings
• Calcutta HC RTI rulings
• Grounds for RTI rejection
• DPDP Rules 2025 amendment
• RTI: a decade of change
• Blog — all posts
• Important decisions index

• Central Information Commission — Annual Reports 2005-2024 (cic.gov.in).
• Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019, 2023).
• Supreme Court and High Court judgements as cited above.

Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.

Historical CIC (Central Information Commission) orders — complete guide to landmark decisions:

1. Step 1: What is the CIC? (a) the Central Information Commission (CIC) is the apex body for RTI implementation (at the central level — established under Section 12 of the RTI Act, 2005 — it hears second appeals and complaints — against central government public authorities), (b) the CIC is headed by the Chief Information Commissioner (and up to 10 Information Commissioners — who are appointed by the President — on the recommendation of a committee — the PM, the Leader of Opposition, and a Cabinet Minister), © the CIC has the power to: (i) order disclosure of information (under Section 19(8)(a)), (ii) impose penalties on PIOs (Rs 250 per day — up to Rs 25,000 — under Section 20(1)), (iii) recommend disciplinary action (against PIOs — under Section 20(2)), (iv) order compensation (to the appellant — under Section 19(8)(b)), (d) the CIC's orders are binding (but can be challenged in the High Court — under Article 226 — or the Supreme Court — under Article 32).
2. Step 2: Landmark CIC orders. (a) CIC/SM/A/2006/00018 (Navleen Kumar vs. RBI — 2006): the CIC held that RBI must disclose the list of loan defaulters (the RBI had refused — citing Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence — but the CIC held that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the commercial interest — and ordered disclosure), (b) CIC/AT/A/2007/01029 (Arun Agrawal vs. PMO — 2007): the CIC held that the PMO must disclose the file notings on the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (the PMO had refused — but the CIC held that file notings are covered under RTI — and ordered disclosure — this was later upheld by the Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), © CIC/SM/A/2011/001236 (Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs. Supreme Court — 2011): the CIC held that the Supreme Court's office is a public authority under RTI (and the CJI's office is covered — the CIC ordered the Supreme Court to disclose the assets and liabilities of judges — this was challenged — and the Delhi High Court upheld the CIC's order — and the Supreme Court eventually agreed to disclose judges' assets), (d) CIC/AD/A/2012/000324 (Anil Bairwal vs. Political Parties — 2012): the CIC held that six national political parties are public authorities under RTI (INC, BJP, BSP, NCP, CPI, CPM — as they are substantially financed by the government — and ordered them to appoint PIOs — the political parties refused — and the order has not been implemented — but it remains a landmark ruling).
3. Step 3: Orders on file notings. (a) the CIC has consistently held that file notings are covered under RTI (in multiple orders — starting from 2006 — the CIC held that file notings are records — under Section 2(f) — and are not exempt — unless they fall under Section 8), (b) the CIC's position was upheld by the Supreme Court (in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 — and in Wajahat Habibullah vs. CIC, 2009 — the courts held that file notings are disclosable — with severability under Section 10), © the CIC has ordered disclosure of: (i) file notings on appointments (CVC, CIC, CJI — as in the Arun Agrawal case), (ii) file notings on policy decisions (e.g., the file notings on demonetisation — and on the PM-CARES fund — where the CIC ordered disclosure — or partial disclosure — with severability), (iii) file notings on investigations (e.g., the file notings on the CBI investigation — where the CIC ordered disclosure — after the investigation was complete).
4. Step 4: Orders on Section 4(1)(b) compliance. (a) the CIC has issued multiple orders directing public authorities to comply with Section 4(1)(b) (the suo moto disclosure — 17 categories — which most public authorities have not complied with), (b) in CIC/SM/A/2008/00748 (Shekhar Singh vs. PMO — 2008): the CIC held that the PMO must publish all 17 categories of Section 4(1)(b) — and update them annually — and directed the PMO to comply within 30 days, © the CIC has issued show-cause notices to defaulting public authorities (for non-compliance with Section 4 — and has imposed penalties on PIOs — for not maintaining the records — and not publishing the suo moto disclosure), (d) the CIC has also issued guidelines (on Section 4(1)(b) compliance — in 2008 and 2015 — directing all public authorities to publish the 17 categories — in a user-friendly format — on their websites).
5. Step 5: Orders on political parties. (a) in CIC/AD/A/2012/000324 (Anil Bairwal vs. Political Parties — 2012): the CIC held that six national political parties are public authorities (INC, BJP, BSP, NCP, CPI, CPM — because: (i) they are substantially financed by the government (free air time on Doordarshan, free land for offices, tax exemption under Section 13A), (ii) they perform a public function (contesting elections — and forming the government), (iii) the RTI Act defines “public authority” broadly — under Section 2(h)(d)(i) — “substantially financed by the government”), (b) the CIC ordered the parties to: (i) appoint PIOs (within 6 weeks), (ii) comply with Section 4(1)(b) (publish the 17 categories — within 6 weeks), (iii) respond to RTI applications (as per the Act), © the political parties refused (none of the six parties appointed PIOs — or complied with the order — and the government did not enforce it — the order remains unimplemented — but it is a landmark — and is cited in subsequent cases — and in the ongoing debate on political parties under RTI).
6. Step 6: Orders on private bodies. (a) the CIC has held that private bodies performing public functions are covered under RTI (under Section 2(h)(d)(i) — if they are substantially financed by the government), (b) examples: (i) private schools on government land (the CIC has held that private schools on government land — at concessional rates — are substantially financed — and are public authorities — and must appoint PIOs), (ii) private hospitals receiving government subsidies (the CIC has held that private hospitals — receiving government subsidies — or land at concessional rates — are public authorities — for the purpose of RTI), (iii) PPP projects (the CIC has held that public-private partnership projects — are public authorities — as they are substantially financed by the government), © the CIC's orders on private bodies have been challenged (in the High Courts — with mixed results — some courts have upheld — and some have struck down — the issue is not fully settled — but the CIC's orders are important precedents).
7. Step 7: How to use CIC orders. (a) cite the relevant CIC order (in your RTI application — or first appeal — or second appeal — cite the specific order — with the number and date — to support your request), (b) in the first appeal: if the PIO rejects — cite the CIC order (which held that the information is disclosable — and argue that the PIO's rejection is contrary to the CIC's order), © in the second appeal: if the FAA upholds the rejection — cite the CIC order (and demand that the CIC follow its own precedent — and order disclosure), (d) in the High Court: if the CIC does not order disclosure — cite the CIC's earlier orders (and the Supreme Court judgments — to argue that the CIC's order is inconsistent with its own precedent — and with the RTI Act), (e) the CIC's orders are available on the CIC website (cic.gov.in — search by order number — or by the appellant's name — or by the public authority — and download the full text), (f) Example: A citizen filed RTI with a private school — asking for the admission criteria — the school refused — the citizen cited the CIC's order (that private schools on government land are public authorities) — in the first appeal — and the second appeal — the CIC followed its precedent — and ordered the school to disclose the admission criteria.

See Historical CIC Orders and First Appeal.