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.

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:

1. The information was personal information under §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. 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.
3. The CIC had bypassed this procedure.

The Delhi High Court (single judge bench) held:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. The CIC erred by directing disclosure without remitting the matter for §11 consultation.
4. The matter was remanded to the PIO to follow the §11 procedure properly.

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:

1. The PIO must serve you a §11 notice — if it didn't, the proceeding is voidable.
2. You have 10 days to oppose disclosure or to argue why the public-interest threshold is not met.
3. Even after the PIO orders disclosure, you have a 30-day appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act.
4. 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.

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.

• 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).

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 CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 (Constitution Bench).

1. As a citizen-applicant asking for someone else's records, expect a §11 hearing. Write your application with the public-interest argument front-loaded.
2. 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*.
3. As an FAA appellant, if the PIO ordered disclosure without §11, cite this case to argue the order is procedurally void.

Use our AI RTI Drafter to insert §8(1)(j) + §11 citation language automatically.

• 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. 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.

• Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) test
• CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — Constitution Bench
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC accountability
• RTI case-law database
• AI RTI Drafter
• RTI Act, 2005

Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.