Can You Get a Trust's Accounts Under RTI? Section 8(1)(e) Limits

Yes, in many cases you can. A public trust's balance sheets, audit reports and property registers held by a statutory trustee are usually routine official records, not fiduciary information. So the Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary relationship exemption often does not apply, and even when it does, a larger public interest can override it.

If you are short on time, jump to the decision flow below. It tells you in four questions whether a PIO can lawfully refuse your request under 8(1)(e).

A Public Information Officer (PIO) often stamps “fiduciary relationship” on any financial record and refuses it. That is a misreading of the law. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 protects only information a person holds because someone trusted them in confidence. It does not protect the everyday records a public body generates while doing its statutory job.

This matters most for public trusts and bodies like the Official Trustee or Administrator General. They hold money and property for beneficiaries. But the accounts they file, the audits they undergo and the registers they maintain are products of their official duty. They are not secrets handed over in confidence.

The Madras High Court settled this point in 2026. We explain the ruling, give you a test you can apply yourself, and show how to frame the RTI and first appeal when a PIO gets 8(1)(e) wrong.

Apply these four questions in order. Stop at the first answer that resolves it.

1. Was the record given to the body in confidence, within a relationship of trust? A patient telling a doctor, a client telling a lawyer, a beneficiary handing private papers to a trustee. If yes, 8(1)(e) may apply. Go to question 4.
2. Or was the record generated by the body while doing its own official or statutory duty? Accounts, audits, registers, collection details. If yes, 8(1)(e) does not apply. The record is disclosable.
3. Is the information about the public body own functioning and finances, paid for or maintained with public authority? If yes, treat it as routine official information, not fiduciary.
4. Even if it is genuinely fiduciary, does a larger public interest justify disclosure? If yes, the exemption is overridden and the record must be released.

The core test from the case law: information a trustee “received during the course of discharge of his statutory duties” is not held in a fiduciary capacity. Only information received because of trust and confidence is.

Section 8(1)(e) exempts “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”

A fiduciary relationship is one of trust and confidence. One side relies on the other to act in their interest and shares private information for that purpose. Classic examples are doctor and patient, lawyer and client, and a trustee and beneficiary in the true personal sense.

The key words are “in his fiduciary relationship.” The information must reach the holder because of that trust relationship. A statutory body own books of account do not reach it that way. They are created by the body itself, as part of its public function.

In Public Information Officer, Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu v. State Information Commissioner, W.P.No.44029 of 2025, decided 4 June 2026, the Madras High Court rejected a blanket 8(1)(e) claim.

The Official Trustee had refused balance sheets, audit reports, property registers and demand and collection details, calling them fiduciary information. The Court disagreed.

It held (paragraph 49) that these are “not records which the Official Trustee has received in fiduciary capacity, but are information that he received during the course of discharge of his statutory duties.” So 8(1)(e) did not protect them.

The Court also confirmed (paragraph 62) that the RTI Act has overriding effect over contrary provisions of other laws, including the Official Trustees Act, 1913. A trustee cannot hide behind an older secrecy provision to defeat an RTI request.

The practical takeaway: when a statutory trustee performs official functions, its accounts and registers are public information, not private confidences.

Even where 8(1)(e) genuinely applies, the exemption is not absolute. The section itself allows disclosure where “the larger public interest warrants” it.

So a PIO who claims 8(1)(e) must do two things. First, show the information was truly held in a fiduciary capacity. Second, weigh public interest in disclosure against the interest in withholding. A bare assertion of “fiduciary” without this analysis is not a valid refusal.

For records about public money, public trusts and statutory bodies, the public interest in transparency is strong. If you can show the information helps detect misuse, mismanagement or unfairness, push the override hard in your appeal. For more on balancing privacy against public interest, see how a First Appellate Authority balances privacy and public interest.

1. Ask for specific records by name. Request “balance sheets and audited accounts for 2024-25 and 2025-26,” not “all financial information.” Precise requests are harder to refuse.
2. State the statutory-duty point in the application. Add one line: these are records generated in discharge of the body statutory duties, not information held in any fiduciary capacity.
3. Pre-empt 8(1)(e). Note that even if any part is treated as fiduciary, the larger public interest in transparency of a public trust warrants disclosure.
4. Keep a copy and note the date. The PIO must reply within 30 days under Section 7(1). Silence is a deemed refusal.

1. File within 30 days. You have 30 days from the reply, or from the date the 30-day reply window expired. See how to file a first appeal under Section 19.
2. Pin down the fiduciary claim. Argue the records were generated by the body in its official duty, so they were never held “in a fiduciary relationship” at all.
3. Cite the statutory-duty test. Records received “during the course of discharge of statutory duties” are not fiduciary. Routine accounts, audits and registers fall outside 8(1)(e).
4. Demand the public-interest analysis. A PIO must show why withholding outweighs disclosure. A bare label of “fiduciary” is not a reasoned order.
5. Raise the overriding effect. If the PIO leans on an older secrecy law, note that the RTI Act overrides contrary provisions of other enactments.

If the body claims the records belong to a third party, learn how that process works in the Section 11 third-party procedure. For the related privacy exemption that PIOs often confuse with 8(1)(e), read the Section 8(1)(j) personal-information framework.

For a full walkthrough of drafting strong applications and appeals, see The RTI Playbook.

Usually not. Accounts, audit reports and registers are generated by the body while doing its statutory work. They are not information received in confidence within a trust relationship. The Madras High Court held in 2026 that such records of the Official Trustee are not held in a fiduciary capacity, so Section 8(1)(e) does not protect them.

It means a relationship of trust and confidence, where one side shares private information relying on the other to act in their interest. Doctor and patient, lawyer and client, and trustee and beneficiary in the true sense are examples. The information must reach the holder because of that trust, not because the body created it in its own official work.

Yes. The RTI Act 2005 has overriding effect over contrary provisions of other enactments. The Madras High Court confirmed this in 2026, holding that Parliament wanted the RTI Act to override anything contrary in other laws, including the Official Trustees Act, 1913. A trustee cannot use an older secrecy provision to defeat a valid RTI request.

Possibly. Section 8(1)(e) is not absolute. It allows disclosure where the larger public interest warrants it. For records about public money or public trusts, the transparency interest is strong. In your appeal, show how disclosure serves the public, for example by exposing misuse or mismanagement, and ask the authority to apply the override.

You can ask for balance sheets, audited accounts, audit reports, property registers, and demand and collection details. Name the specific documents and the years you want. The Madras High Court treated exactly these categories as disclosable statutory records rather than fiduciary information.

Treat it as a defective refusal. A valid order must show the information was held in a fiduciary capacity and must weigh public interest against withholding. A bare label is not a reasoned decision. File a first appeal, point out the missing analysis, and ask the First Appellate Authority to order disclosure.

• List the exact documents you want, by name and year.
• Draft a one-page RTI naming each record and the statutory-duty point.
• Add a single line invoking the larger public interest, in case 8(1)(e) is raised.
• Note today date and diary the 30-day reply deadline under Section 7(1).
• Save the first-appeal guide so you can act fast if the reply is evasive.

• Public Information Officer, Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu v. State Information Commissioner, W.P.No.44029 of 2025, Madras High Court, decided 4 June 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6894863/
• Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(e) and Section 7(1)

• Section 8(1)(j): the personal-information exemption explained
• Section 11: when your RTI touches a third party
• How to file a first appeal under Section 19
• How appeals balance privacy against public interest