Important RTI decisions — master directory 2026

Master directory of the most-cited Supreme Court, High Court and Central Information Commission rulings on the Right to Information Act, 2005. These cases form the citation arsenal for any first appeal under §19(1), second appeal under §19(3), and writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Updated to reflect the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in force since 14 November 2025.

• CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 — Constitution Bench. Office of CJI is a public authority under §2(h). Judges' assets are personal information under §8(1)(j) but subject to public-interest balance.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — Personal information of public servants is exempt under §8(1)(j) unless larger public interest is shown.
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) 9 SCC 199 — Time-bound + transparent appointments to Central + State Information Commissions.
• Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020) 10 SCC 274 — RBI 2018 crypto banking circular struck down on proportionality grounds.
• Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; foundation of subsequent §8(1)(j) jurisprudence.

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, 2008) — Procedural objections cannot defeat RTI.
• Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2014) — PIO cannot refuse RTI as “irrelevant” — §3 creates an unconditional right.
• Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (Delhi HC, 2014) — Section 11 third-party consultation is mandatory before disclosing personal information.
• Madras HC on Public Servants' Assets (2024) — modern application of *Girish Deshpande* with §8(2) public-interest balance.

• Sudhir Mehta v. CPIO Income Tax — disclosure of tax records of public servants
• Common Cause v. CIC — MPLAD funds audit transparency
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal series — collegium recommendations, judges' assets, supersession orders

1. Locate the right citation — Use our Citation Formatter for proper formatting.
2. Frame the issue — *“The PIO has invoked §8(1)(j). The Constitution Bench in CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 held that the public-interest balance test under the proviso (now §8(2) post-DPDP) must be applied case by case.”*
3. Quote the ratio, not the obiter.
4. Update for DPDP — every case decided before 14 November 2025 may be subject to the §44(3) amendment to §8(1)(j); the locus of the public-interest test moved to §8(2). The substantive principles survive.

We maintain a database of 300+ CIC + IC + Court rulings at RTI case-law database — searchable by section, court, year, party.

• Right to Information Act, 2005 — full text.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — proviso amendment in force 14 Nov 2025.
• Supreme Court of India — judgment archive at main.sci.gov.in.
• Delhi High Court — judgment archive at delhihighcourt.nic.in.

• Searchable case-law database (300+)
• Citation Formatter
• RTI Act, 2005
• First Appeal Builder
• AI RTI Drafter

Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.