Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

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