pio-section-22-overriding-effect
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | pio-section-22-overriding-effect [2026/04/24 17:13] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | metatag-description=(Section 22 RTI Act — overriding effect on the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and anything inconsistent in any other law in force. Scope, case law, illustrations, | ||
| + | metatag-title=(Section 22 RTI Act: Overriding Effect Complete Guide)}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Section 22 RTI Act: Overriding Effect on the Official Secrets Act and Other Laws (2026 Guide) ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round tip 95%> | ||
| + | **Need help drafting this RTI?** Use our free **[[: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 gives the Act overriding effect on the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and on anything inconsistent in any other law in force. A six-line provision, it is a constitutional-grade override: the RTI right to information trumps colonial-era secrecy law and any State statute that attempts to displace disclosure.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{page> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Part of the **[[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Quick Answer ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Effect** — RTI Act, 2005 prevails over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and anything inconsistent in any other law in force. | ||
| + | * **Scope** — both Central and State laws are subject to §22. | ||
| + | * **Mechanism** — where two laws cover the same ground and are inconsistent, | ||
| + | * **Limit** — §22 does not override the Constitution or the §24 Second Schedule exemption itself. | ||
| + | * **Result** — confidentiality claims grounded in OSA 1923 / state secrecy laws cannot defeat RTI disclosure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Decision / Disclosure Table ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^ Situation ^ Outcome ^ Reason ^ | ||
| + | | OSA 1923 confidentiality claim over a departmental file | Overridden | RTI §22 prevails | | ||
| + | | State secrecy act blocks routine municipal record | Overridden | //State of Karnataka v. Nagesh B.// (SC 2024) | | ||
| + | | Banking Regulation Act protects customer data | Not overridden by §22 | Separate statutory regime; §8(1)(e) covers it | | ||
| + | | Income Tax Act §138 confidentiality | Partly overridden | Aggregate data released; specific assessments §8(1)(j) | | ||
| + | | Conduct Rules for government employees | Not overridden | Service-discipline regime; separate from information access | | ||
| + | | State Private Security Act claiming confidentiality | Overridden | §22 direct | | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Statutory text ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | >// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Landmark case law ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **//State of Karnataka v. Nagesh B.//** (SC 2024) — Karnataka Public Security Act overridden by §22 to the extent inconsistent with RTI disclosure. | ||
| + | * **//Bhagat Singh v. CIC//** (Delhi HC 2007) — OSA 1923 cannot be invoked to block RTI unless the record attracts §8 exemption independently. | ||
| + | * **//CBI v. CPIO CBI//** (Delhi HC 2011) — §22 does not override §24 Second Schedule — separate exemption regime. | ||
| + | * **//S.P. Gupta v. Union of India//** (SC 1981 (cited)) — Foundational — executive privilege and disclosure balance under constitutional principles. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Browse the **[[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Common mistakes ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Blanket invocation** without a specific statutory anchor and reasoning. | ||
| + | * **Skipping public-interest balancing** under §8(2) where an override is plausible. | ||
| + | * **Generic " | ||
| + | * **Missing 30-day clock tracking** — §7(1) drives downstream appeals. | ||
| + | * **No severance attempt** under §10 where parts of the record are disclosable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== FAQs — People Also Ask ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q1. Does §22 override the Constitution? | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. The Act is a statute; constitutional provisions prevail over any statute, including §22. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q2. Does §22 override §24?** | ||
| + | |||
| + | No — §24 is within the RTI Act itself. §22 overrides OTHER laws, not its own internal provisions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q3. Can a State legislature pass a law that defeats RTI?** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Only to the extent consistent with §22 and the fundamental right to information recognised in Article 19(1)(a). Any inconsistency is overridden. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q4. Does §22 make OSA 1923 redundant? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not redundant — OSA still applies to national-security prosecutions. But its confidentiality label cannot defeat an RTI disclosure unless §8 independently applies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Q5. Does §22 help against a High Court privacy order?** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Court orders enjoy their own legal status; §22 is about inconsistent " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== What Should You Do Next? ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **Sibling framework pages:** [[: | ||
| + | * **Procedure side:** [[: | ||
| + | * **§8 exemption deep-dives: | ||
| + | * **Full Act text:** [[:act|RTI Act with DPDP 2025 overlay]] | ||
| + | * **Landmark rulings:** [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related reading ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Right to Information Act, 2005. | ||
| + | * Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — notified 14 November 2025. | ||
| + | * Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited above. | ||
| + | * Central Information Commission and State Information Commission decisions, as indexed in our [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||
Was this helpful?
— views
Thanks for the signal.
pio-section-22-overriding-effect.txt · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1
