Policy File Noting under RTI: What a PIO Must Disclose

RTI Act §2(f) [file notings are “information”]; §8(1)(i) [Cabinet papers + records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers]; §8(1)(i) proviso [decision, reasons and material made public after the decision]; §8(2) [public-interest override]; §10 [severability]; §7(8) [reasoned reply]. Case law: CPIO, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC Constitution Bench, 13 Nov 2019); Bhagat Singh v Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, 2007).

• A file noting is “information” under §2(f) — no exemption attaches merely because a record is a noting.
• §8(1)(i) covers Cabinet papers and records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers — not every policy file. Notings on an ordinary, non-Cabinet file are outside §8(1)(i) altogether.
• Proviso to §8(1)(i): once the decision has been taken and the matter is complete, the decision of the Council of Ministers, the reasons and the material on the basis of which it was taken must be made public — subject to the second proviso that anything falling under another exemption in §8 still need not be disclosed.
• For non-Cabinet policy files, test the specific exemption actually engaged — e.g. §8(1)(j) personal information, §8(1)(d) commercial confidence — never a blanket “pre-decision” refusal.
• Severability under §10 is mandatory — release the disclosable portions even if other portions are exempt.
• Public-interest override under §8(2) applies to §8(1)(i) as well.

1. Identify whether §8(1)(i) is even engaged — Is the record a Cabinet paper or a record of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries or other officers? If not, §8(1)(i) does not apply; test each exemption separately.
2. Identify the decision status — Has the decision been taken? Is the matter complete or over?
3. Cabinet / Council of Ministers files — Pre-decision deliberative records: exempt. After the decision and completion of the matter: the decision, the reasons and the material must be made public per the proviso.
4. Non-Cabinet policy files — No §8(1)(i) shield. Disclose unless a specific sub-clause (e.g. §8(1)(d), §8(1)(j)) applies to a particular portion.
5. Apply §10 severability — Mixed records: disclose the rest, redact only the exempt portions.
6. Issue a speaking order — Cite the provision applied and give reasons for each portion (§7(8); Bhagat Singh reasoned-order standard).

To: [Applicant Name]

Subject: Reply to RTI [____] — File noting on [Policy / Decision Name]

Sir/Madam,

Your application sought file notings + materials related to [decision/policy]. Applying Section 8(1)(i) and its proviso, Section 8(2) and Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005:

NATURE OF FILE:
[The decision is a decision of the Council of Ministers / The file is not a Cabinet paper].

DECISION STATUS:
[Decision taken on [date]; matter complete / Matter under deliberation].

CABINET / COUNCIL OF MINISTERS RECORDS:
Records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers before the decision remain exempt under Section 8(1)(i). However, per the proviso, the decision of [date], the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which it was taken are made public below / enclosed: [list].

NON-CABINET FILE NOTINGS:
File notings on this file are not exempt merely as notings. The following portions are disclosed: [list]. The following portions are withheld under Section 8(1)[_] because [reasons]: [list].

PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Names/evaluations attracting Section 8(1)(j) have been dealt with through the public-interest balancing under Section 8(2): [outcome per portion].

Section 10 severability has been applied throughout.

Yours faithfully,
[Name, Designation, PIO]

Cabinet paper and pre-decision deliberations exempt; once the decision is taken and the matter complete, the decision, reasons and material are public per the proviso.

Not a Cabinet record — §8(1)(i) does not apply. Disclose unless a specific exemption (e.g. §8(1)(d) or §8(1)(j)) covers a portion.

Within Cabinet-type deliberations it is part of the exempt deliberative record, though the decision, reasons and material still become public per the proviso. On ordinary files the noting is disclosable, subject to §8(1)(j) privacy balancing for the officer.

Part of the material on the basis of which the decision was taken — disclosable after the decision; give third parties notice under §11 where their interests are involved.

Per CPIO, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC Constitution Bench, 13 Nov 2019): the office of the CJI is a public authority and collegium-related information is within RTI, but disclosure is balanced case-by-case under §8(1)(j) — no blanket access.

Deliberations of the Council of Ministers before the budget: exempt under §8(1)(i). After the budget decision, the decision, reasons and material are public.

• CPIO, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC Constitution Bench, 13 Nov 2019) — Office of the CJI is a public authority under §2(h); judges' asset declarations and collegium-related information fall within RTI, subject to §8(1)(j) public-interest balancing.
• Bhagat Singh v Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, 2007) — Exemptions must be shown to apply, with reasons; public authorities and the Commission owe reasoned, speaking orders.
• CIC practice on file notings — Commissioners have consistently treated file notings as disclosable information and confined §8(1)(i) to Cabinet-type records; check the specific CIC decision applicable to your file before refusing.

• Treating §8(1)(i) as a blanket exemption for all policy files — it is confined to Cabinet papers and records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.
• Ignoring the proviso — after the decision is taken and the matter complete, the decision, reasons and material must be made public.
• Refusing all file notings without distinguishing Cabinet records from ordinary files.
• Extending the Cabinet-paper exemption to every supporting document even after the decision.
• Failing to apply §10 severability for mixed records.
• Generic refusal without reasoning — violates §7(8).
• Confusing officers' personal information (§8(1)(j)) with the deliberative record itself.

• Maintain a decision-tracking log — for each decision, note the date it was taken and when the matter became complete.
• For complex files, work with the record-keeper to identify which portions are Cabinet-type deliberations and which are ordinary notings.
• Develop standard reply templates for routine file noting requests.
• Train officers on the §8(1)(i) proviso — most over-refusal comes from caution, not the statute.
• For Cabinet papers, consult the nodal ministry for clarity on what is in the Cabinet paper itself versus annexed material.
• Use anonymization for officer notes if §8(1)(j) genuinely applies, but disclose the substantive content.

Each decision stands on its own: the first decision, its reasons and material became public once taken and the matter completed; the reversal follows the same rule.

On ordinary files, yes — subject to §8(1)(j) balancing for the officer's personal information. Within Cabinet-type deliberations the deliberative record remains exempt, but the decision, reasons and material are public per the proviso.

Cabinet papers and records of deliberations remain exempt while the matter is live; once the decision is taken and the matter complete, the decision, reasons and material must be made public under the proviso.

For deliberations of the Council of Ministers, exempt under §8(1)(i) while the matter is live. For ordinary policy files, a pending decision is not itself an exemption — and the reply cannot be deferred until a decision is taken; respond within the §7 timeline on the record as it exists.

Part of the decision's material basis — generally disclosable after the decision; give §11 notice where third-party interests are involved.

• pio section 8 1 i cabinet papers
• pio faa knowledge base
• pio supreme court rulings
• act/section-8
• rti for policy deliberation
• The RTI Playbook

RTI Act, 2005: §2(f), §8(1)(i) and its proviso, §8(2), §10, §11, §7(8); CPIO, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC Constitution Bench, 13 Nov 2019); Bhagat Singh v Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, W.P.(C) 3114/2007, decided 3 Dec 2007).